| Your criticism does not make sense at all. I wish you addressed my questions and criticisms of your argument instead of bringing up new points, but I'll address your new points as well. > Another misleading assertion is the idea that our "re-opened" state is anything like the state of affairs pre-lockdown You have a faulty assumption that spread factor was reduced due to lockdown. 7 states did not close down (Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming), and many states that locked down has been open for weeks now [1]. We have not see a spike in neither of these scenarios relative to the still locked down states. Again: there is no correlation between being locked down and reduced spread factor. Quite to the contrary NYC and other places under heavy lock-down has been the worst affected. > Still another issue is your somewhat facile assessment of Walmart and other retail scenarios. The relevant metric here would not be closure of stores but transmission of the virus, as many people would be asymptomatic including, likely, workers. Yet, they may still have transmitted the virus. You honestly that all those workers are symptomatic in a high exposure scenario at a lower rate than the general population? And you honestly claiming that a highly contagious virus that you claim has such a high likelihood of hospitalization and death that we all need to be on lockdown, somehow doesn't have this effect to the same degree on grocery workers that are exposed more than anyone? All ages work in grocery stores [3]. Grocery store workers are heroes, but I didn't know they were superheroes. > But the real problem is that you omit the fact that measures we took to limit store hours, numbers of concurrent shoppers, in-store distancing That doesn't make sense if the desire is to reduce peak traffic. Limiting store hours with a similar amount of shoppers increase people per hour of shopping, and limiting concurrent shoppers cause huge lines outside. Arguably this may increase virus exposure. In-store-distancing: covid is transmitted on and can stay alive on metals, plastics as well as other inside surfaces for an extended period. Up to a day on cardboard. * scientific facts on ineffectiveness of major lockdown measures N95 masks work: mask to filter out 95% of particles larger than 0.3 microns. Coronavirus is between 0.06 and 0.14 microns. Social distancing doesn't stop you from being exposed by: - virus suspended in droplets smaller than five micrometers can stay suspended for about a half-hour - virus stays alive up to a day on everything in a grocery store (or any other store or delivery container); cardboard, plastics, metals Wearing gloves: virus actually lives longer on plastic gloves and gloves in general worsens spread [2] TLDR; Only highly targeted and managed approaches has worked in limiting deaths, such as isolating the vulnerable. The lockdown measures and protective gear people wear are not stopping the virus spread due to virus size as well as how it spreads, but it is an excellent signal of obedience to nonsense measures. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reopening-america-see-w...
[2] https://www.orthospinenews.com/2020/04/23/spreading-coronavi...
[3] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm |
Much of what you say simply does not comport with reality. Anyone who's been to a grocery store in a lock down state can tell you that the stores became much sparser. A big part of this is because most people simply go less frequently. Also people don't tend to linger. In general, people make adjustments that all but completely mitigate the imaginary issues you're raising. You can rail on about a bunch of hypotheticals, but that doesn't overturn observable reality.
Likewise, all of your assertions about gloves and the virus living on surfaces, etc. It has not been proven that lingering detectable particles on items are a significant mode of transmission vs direct contact with people. And, in fact, super spreader events are linked directly to people in close proximity: funerals, church services, sporting events, parties and social gatherings, etc. Actively respired particles while in close proximity to other humans transmits the virus. Full stop. It is absolutely ludicrous to assert otherwise.
You also cannot draw the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective due purely to micron size. No, they are not a perfect shield, but they can reduce transmission in that clearly not every particle will fit neatly through a space and make a beeline from one person's mucous membranes to another's. This is just silliness. And, when all parties wear masks, it reduces viral contact even further. Reduction of contact with viable virus particles reduces transmission. Clearly.
These are truly facile statements you are making, and it's asinine to expect that someone will word for word deconstruct them. You take a bunch of random facts, misinterpret them, and suggest that you've made some sort of argument. You then go on to make sweeping statements without any basis in fact.
The other technique you are using is to cherry pick information and draw conclusions without regard to the factors that plainly contradict your points, and you equate correlation with causation. Some of those points I made to you in my last comment, but you chose not to address them.
For instance, I addressed your assertion that reopening states haven't experienced spikes by pointing out that there hasn't been enough time to measure. Additionally, many people are still under voluntary lockdown and most states are only partially reopened in any case. Crickets.
But, then you link out to some NBC news report that actually shows spikes in some states since their re-opening, directly contradicting your claims and supporting my assertion that we have not had enough time to draw conclusions. Did you think I wouldn't read it?
TLDR; your arguments are not actual arguments.