Not endorsing this perspective (and note newspaper), but think we'll see more of this kind of critique. Need to be transparent about evid behind policies. Good communication key. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/15/two-metre-rule-has-no-basis-say-oxford-university-experts/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1256781&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_New_ES&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_ES20200616&utm_campaign=DM1256781 … "Much of the evidence informing policy in this outbreak is poor quality..."
-
-
It’s obvious that economics is driving this pushback. One can argue about specific guidelines, but if you relax social distancing AND stop requiring people to wear masks, we could be looking at disaster.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thought I read recently that 10’ was what was needed to be effective.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The Q is ill-posed, as the recommendation combines 3 considerations, only 1 of which can be evidence-backed in this sense. 1) What is the likelihood of transmission as a function of distance? 2) What is an acceptable likelihood? 3) What is an acceptable / feasible distance?
-
It’s true. #2 and #3 are value judgments.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Excellent piece, David. Spot on.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wonder what is the likelihood of crossing 1m distance with 2m recommendation and 1m. Would there be some effect that makes some people that take that recommendation lightly to be more likely to not cross that 1m barrier as this would be a big difference from recommendation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.