Why do you think a nightclub would be safer than a grocery store? Or what exactly are you saying?
The word ‘safer’ is not one I would use. But more spread from grocery stores than from nightclubs? Because a whole lot more people use grocery stores than they do nightclubs. And a whole lot more kinds of people, at that. Up to that point it should be obvious enough, no?
Note that during the stretches listed as lockdowns, the r0 of the virus was less than zero in most, and declined in nearly all states during that time.
Seems to me that lockdowns are pretty effective. What’s your explanation for the decline in R0 during those time periods, if not lockdown effectiveness?
Seems that way to you based on an eyeball test, is it? I’m pretty sure there are sources who have run the hard stats on it. I’ve seen studies that find no correlation at all between lockdowns and case/death counts (let alone, of course, any demonstration of causation), but you know how it goes with these studies. Pretty easy to find bias of one kind or another.
I think you mean R-t and not R-naught, and I think you mean less than one and not less than zero, but to answer your question, my hypothesis is that there is a climatic force at play – call it seasonality if you like, though it’s not necessarily exactly that – and that immunity from natural infection has a braking effect on outbreaks. That’s another thing about exponential growth, you know: one way or another, it cannot last indefinitely.
So rather than apply Occam’s Razor and figure that the effects of the lockdown were the reason for the Rt declines that corresponded to the lockdown timing in virtually every state, you’re scheming up something about seasonality and immunity?
Next you’ll be telling us about faked Moon landings, alien abductions, stolen elections, foreign voting machine fraud and other absurd conspiratorial nonsense.
I don’t think it’s ‘virtually every state’, for one thing. For another, I think Occam’s Razor would be more appropriate for a simpler explanation, like a widespread virus running out of naive hosts to infect, than it would for a more complex one, such as a heterogenous mix of varied and multi-layered interventions that are applied unevenly yet still produce equivalent effects. And finally, I think seasonality and naturally-acquired immunity are commonplace scientific principles that are well established and broadly observed, not anything being schemed up for this particular cause.
So, no, my viewpoint doesn’t have anything to do with conspiracy theories or political agendas. And I don’t think that’s a fair representation of my post, particularly since you asked for ‘my explanation’ and I willingly shared it with you.
No. People tend to sit very close together and talk really loudly because the music is loud in nightclubs. There’s also the disinhibitory effect of alcohol combined with a frequent lack of judgement. At grocery stores, most people aren’t drunk and talking loudly, and in my experience are very conscientious about keeping their distance from each other. YMMV, but I would say those factors alone make nightclubs more dangerous for Covid-19.
Well, but now you’re getting to the next level. The point I’m trying to make it is that it makes a difference not only how infectious an environment is but also how many people frequent that environment. A place that is one-tenth as infectious as another would still contribute far more to spread if a hundred times more people went there. Or that’s the theory, anyway.
…it isn’t “the next level.” The next level of what? This is the fundamental basis of risk management in a pandemic. A place that is one-tenth as infectious as another would not necessarily still contribute far more to spread if a hundred times more people went there. That isn’t the theory. This isn’t how any of this works.
Explain how that would work. How would a more infectious situation not result in more infection, as else being equal?
The ‘next level’ means the next level of analysis. Like, the first level is where does the community as a whole stand to infect the most people, and the next level is to assess the risks in each environment. The dentist office could be the most infectious place in town but might not be the biggest problem if nobody goes there.
What it does no one any good at all to do is focus on one level of analysis only.
…because in the real world we don’t rely on SayTwo’s subjective determination of what is and isn’t “a more infectious situation.” Because in the real world where a pandemic is raging across the planet all things aren’t equal. The pandemic doesn’t care about artificial parameters that you have personally decided as a metric for debate. In almost every circumstance the nightclub will be more infectious than the supermarket because things aren’t equal.
Okay. Gotcha. There is no “next level of debate.” You’ve simply lost the debate and are now attempting to redefine the debate.
No I think we are good here.
Did you know that in this prominent article in Nature, which was written about in this oft-cited New York Times piece, that the modelers assigned the same base level of infectiousness to every Point of Interest, as they called them, from coffee shops to grocery stores to new car lots? They modeled spread based on foot traffic, size of establishment, and time spent inside. That’s it. Not kissing and touching and loud music and lowered inhibitions. They wanted objective things they could empirically measure. I’m on their side. The one you want to call subjective.
If you’re not interested in considering other points of view besides the one you already hold, fine. But I might recommend, in that case, not joining the discussion. And certainly not blaming me for a conceptual framework that you can find in a peer-reviewed article in one of the most highly respected scientific publications on record.
…are you referring to the allegedly prominent article in Nature that I’ve never heard of, written by the paper I’ve barely read since the paywall went up?
Do you know why they would have wanted objective things they could measure? Because objective things are the only things they can measure.
But in the real world people kiss and they touch and they play loud music and inhibitions are lowered. And in the real world that isn’t a “Level Two” situation. That’s something that actually happens. You can’t pretend that all things are equal. You know they are not.
Don’t play that game. This isn’t what this is all about.
You are allowed to hold a different point of view.
But when that point of view is dangerous then it deserves to get called out.
This isn’t a game. This isn’t a hypothetical discussion. People are dying. And this debate that you want to have has already been played out and we played it out months ago. Your point of view has been considered. We are watching as your “point of view” was essentially adopted as policy in the US and the UK. And we are watching the devastating consequences of that point of view. The debate is over. You are bringing nothing new to the table here.
You can’t hide behind “peer review.” We’ve had this discussion. You’ve all but admitted you aren’t qualified to understand the nuance and the context of these studies you so often cite. I’m not even going to bother to dig deeper into your cite because every single other time I’ve done it in these forums you’ve ignored my rebuttal then pretended the rebuttal didn’t exist.
Posting a hyperlink is not an argument.
I’m not saying that all is equal between a nightclub and a grocery store. I can see, and I fully appreciate, the very obvious differences between the two. In fact, the very obvious differences between the two also inform part of my own argument. Yes, people behave differently in nightclubs as compared to grocery stores. But it’s also non-identical populations that go to nightclubs and grocery stores. And the two populations also aren’t anywhere near the same size.
See, there’s more to being unequal than the way in which people behave. Who and how many behave in those different ways in those different places could be every bit as important, if not much more so.
When I said that one environment could be one-tenth as infectious – and that means that we’ve factored in all those other parts of the analysis, like kissing and dancing and masking and social distance – yet still contribute more to spread in the community if a hundred times more people go there, you said that would not necessarily be the case. I asked then, and am asking again, how you arrive at that conclusion? If one in ten people at a nightclub contract a virus and one in a hundred people at a grocery store, and a hundred people go to a nightclub while a thousand people go to a grocery store, is one contributing more to spread in the community than the other?
If you’re talking about the article I linked, then yes, that’s the one I’m referring to. The “Online attention” section of the metrics page says:
This article is in the 99th percentile (ranked 15th) of the 375,263 tracked articles of a similar age in all journals and the 99th percentile (ranked 2nd) of the 880 tracked articles of a similar age in Nature
…I’m not interested in a hypothetical discussion with numbers you’ve plucked out of thin air. I’m not interested in a hypothetical discussion where you’ve redefined the terms of the debate. Who says we’ve “factored in all those other parts of the analysis” and when we do factor those in where did you get the “one-tenth as infectious” figure from?
You ask me to:
Because I’ve given you a subjective answer to a question that lacks any real world specifics.
And you are doing it again.
Why should we use these numbers that you just made up? How do these numbers you’ve invented apply to the real world?
How about:
“If ten out of ten people at a nightclub contract a virus and one in a hundred people at a grocery store, and a hundred people go to a nightclub while a thousand people go to a grocery store, is one contributing more to spread in the community than the other?”
Or how about:
If 100 in 100 people at a nightclub contract a virus and one in a hundred people at a grocery store, and a thousand people go to a nightclub while a thousand people go to a grocery store, is one contributing more to spread in the community than the other?
I could keep inventing numbers all night if you want.
But none of them would be applicable to the real world.
I still haven’t heard of it, and neither have millions of other people in the world. Posting a link to the online attention section of a metrics page is not an argument. It doesn’t support your understanding of the paper.
I’ve spent two to three hours reading the paper, including its supplemental sections, examining the methodology, considering its strengths and limitations, and reflecting on its implications. I think I understand the paper quite well. And I’m especially confident in saying that because I felt my understanding increase markedly when I read it the second time, after having done some of that deeper digging, thought, and reflection.
The reason one would use hypothetical parameters is to understand the framework of the problem, to set the endpoints. The numbers you used in your examples do a fine job of establishing one end of the spectrum. We can of course flip those and look at the other end. Then we start dialing it in a little more closely and seeing what tells us. It is in considering the entire range of possible realities – since any ‘one reality’ itself is, as you said, hard to empirically and objectively measure – that we better inform our potential actions. I am not at all saying that I think nightclubs are ten times as infectious as grocery stores, or that there is evidence that one-tenth the number of people go there. I hope I’m demonstrating, though, that there is little difference between the two if those numbers would be close to true*. And if we agreed on that, then we could get to the next level and see if we could actually tease out some hard data after all.
*There would still remain implications of it being a non-identical population that frequents one as compared to the other, but that’s a whole other level of analysis.
…considering the contrarian point of view that you’ve taken in almost every single discussion we’ve had here on Covid-19, why would the amount of time you spent reading a scientific paper be a metric worthy of consideration?
And we are doing the dance again. How many times do you want to shift the goalposts?
I had no idea that what you were doing was “trying to dial in” the results to see what they will “eventually tell us.” But if that was your intention it shouldn’t have taken me bringing in new numbers to the conversation to get to that point.
We don’t need to keep dialing in the numbers to be able to figure things out. Because the numbers we are dialing are literally plucked out of thin air and don’t tell us anything about reality at all.
We’ve already done this. Nations have already played out these scenarios, they have chosen their course of actions, and we can see in real time what works and what doesn’t.
We can actually just scroll up the thread to read what position you’ve actually taken. And it doesn’t match what you’ve written here.
You mean the numbers that you’ve literally conceded you made up?
We don’t need to “get to the next level.” We don’t have to accept your arguments, or concede you are right or wrong. You’ve pivoted so many times in the last series of posts I no longer know what the position it is you are arguing.
Except it’s more like 1/100th as infectious, and grocery stores aren’t packing 10,000 people in the store at a time.
Wow, you really think so, huh? I would find that very surprising. I don’t think the studies that have tried to either model or estimate the measure have arrived at a multiple remotely that large. Is there anything tangible you’re going on?