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..."
-
-
Replying to @CaulfieldTim
Actually, there is evidence. It’s actually pretty good. Although 2 m isn’t hugely better than one meter, it is better.https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-face-masks-decrease-the-risk-of-covid-19-transmission/ …
5 replies 3 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @CaulfieldTim
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @philkoop @CaulfieldTim
It’s true. #2 and #3 are value judgments.
9:56 AM - 16 Jun 2020
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.