| I already stressed that Covid-19 was very infectious, so why you're bringing this up is beyond me. But... "At one choir practice, one person spread COVID-19 to 52 people, two of whom died." There were 61 people present. The sick singers' average age was 69 [shades of "Nearer My God to Thee!"]. Of those, two died of Covid-19. 2 of 61 is pretty good odds, if you ask me, BUT... how can we be certain that both deaths were due to presence at choir practice? Maybe they caught Covid from their grandchildren, a neighbor, or the postman, .... Similarly for the restaurant case, the affected could have caught the virus from someone other than the assumed. Did the two deceased choir members have comorbidities (e.g., heart disease, diabetes, lung disease or asthma, AIDS, cancer treatment, an immune-suppressed system, etc.)? We should avoid the 2-hour meetings b/c they are unproductive and boring. Back to back in cubicles puts the actual effective recommended 1 metre social spacing into play. The 2-metre value was a judgment, a non-scientific value, tossed out by a British official: https://sports.yahoo.com/coronavirus-social-distancing-lockd... From that URL: "Robert Dingwall, from the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), said the [2-metre] rule was 'conjured up out of nowhere'. The sociology professor at Nottingham Trent University said scientific evidence supports a one-metre gap, but the two-metre advice was a 'rule of thumb'. Laura Ingraham may indeed have been correct when she claimed during her May 4 Fox News broadcast: "Although, intuitively, I think it probably seemed like social distancing would be necessary, there was no real scientific basis for believing that since it had never been studied," Covid-19 is rare and will remain rare. The lock-downs reduce spread but destroy the economy, which also kills people. It remains to be seen whether the "cure" of lock-downs is any better than the disease of Covid-19. It is almost certainly not less expensive. |