You're viewing a single thread.
And yet social distancing was "obvious" because scientists said it u til they admitted they pretty much just made that distance up.
That's why there's an Appeal from Authority fallacy... But you just keep on trusting what ever they say with out questioning it.
You do realize that social distancing does have a body of work around it and was used to mitigate the 1918 pandemic...
Permanently Deleted
They "made up" the arbitrary distance of 6 feet, not the entire concept of distance making it harder for germs to spread... What the hell failure of logic is that?! Some viruses can stay potent in air much better than others and they weren't CONFIDANT that 6 feet would be adequate or overkill. It was an educated guess for COVID specifically, not an ass pulling.
It wasnt an educated guess it was just around 2 meters and felt good. I am not saying worked or not, but there was no science behind the number.
"no science behind the number."
i uhm. Are you aware of this thing, a very little, minor thing, called dispersion? Dilution? etc...
Yes, but that number was not related to what might work or not , it was just a number they liked based on no science.
have you ever heard of this thing called the inverse square law? It applies to a large number of things, and while im not sure about the dissipation of molecules in a gas, im sure there is something very similar. Which would quite literally dictate the level of dispersion, or "average dilution of molecules from a source, from any given arbitrary distance" 6 feet just so happened to be enough that it was small enough to be minorly inconveniencing, and majorly helpful in reducing the significant spread of particles.
Since you seem to know so much about this gas dispersion thing, why don't you specifically explain to me, what it is that is involved here, and how this number is literally pulled out of someones ass, and how it's not based on any science. And i will ignore the fact that you don't seem to understand how science works, or how much of engineering was practiced through the pre-computer age. Nor the fact that you can't provide anything more than "NUH UH" in response to my questions.
And since im here, why dont you explain to me what might or not work in specific terms. Such that i can have any idea of what the ever living fuck you are talking about.
There is a vast difference between doing something that is proven to be generally helpful before you know if it is specifically helpful, and making up an idea.
The fact you cannot understand that vast gulf of difference is frankly hilarious.
They had no idea if it would work or not and had no reason to believe either way. Do you believe in checking hypothesis?
Do you think they didn't or don't continue with the new variants as budgets allow? Your ignorance is made more pathetic by your obstinance.
So you don't think masks work?
Did I say that? Because I didn't, but if you want to put words in my mouth you're more than welcome to have a conversation with yourself at that rate.
99% of medicine is throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Social distancing was an easy way to make it less likely to spread based on similar viruses. Until they had more verifiable ways it was a quick and cheap answer to a complex problem. Sometimes those are necessary, especially when millions of lives are on the line.
99% of medicine is throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Social distancing was an easy way to make it less likely to spread
I'm just going to keep copy and pasting in this thread: This was not communicated to the public in the beginning. Recommendations were stated definitively (i.e., without the qualification that we don't really know what to do yet) and then latter revised. This erodes public trust.
No, no that is not medicine.
Go take a biochem class and educate yourself on how fucking stupid that comment sounded. You're basically saying modern chemisty is equivalent to ancient alchemy, which ... is hilariously moronic.
It's not all of medical science, no. We know a great deal. But that only pertains to general study, and not specific cases. We don't know shit about someone, medically, until we do tests. Even then, we can't do an in-depth dissection of them (because that would be wildly inhumane) so we can mostly only go off surface level information. Even for more in-depth information, say with x-rays and MRIs or blood tests, it still only general knowledge. Each person is unique, and has unique characteristics. So we need to take what information we have and try and match it to previous cases to determine what it could be.
Sometimes it's really easy. "You have a cold, go drink some water and get some rest". Sometimes it's not, they have some obscure neurological disorder that only affects .0000001% of the population (at a guess).
A CT scan and blood draw on an individual is absolutely not in any way, "still only general knowledge."
The fact you even say such a thing belies your utter lack of understanding of medical diagnosis.
Permanently Deleted