[Goose]

Right.  When people say "follow the science", that means that if the data doesn't support your hypothesis that small gatherings are a nexus of spread of the virus, then stop telling people that their small gatherings are spreading the virus.  I'm as guilty as anyone in following the conventional wisdom that small gatherings were bad, but if the data is not there to support it, then the assumption needs to be reassessed.

I am at least as guilty as you are in this regard. Often we see a possible mechanism for spread and assume that mechanism actually functions in "real life" as we hypothesize. Sometimes, we are right, but many times we are not. It may happen not at all, less than we thought, or more than we thought.

I really do wish we would have much better data available in near real time to guide us.
<snip>
Our limited infrastructure was challenged before the fall surge; now it is completely overwhelmed.  But at the least we (our public health and government officials) should be focused on the low-hanging fruit.  Find the activities that are clearly leading to the most infections and restrict or risk-reduce those.  Then repeat the process.



BC

Totally agree with these ideas. As has been commented before, the studies we would hope to see from the State health authorities regarding spread in their jurisdictions just aren't there. The lack of available data naturally creates questions about the degree of transparency in their decision making process. For instance, is buying pinot a problem but syrah not <bad joke>? To what degree do they know what they are doing and to what degree are they guessing and hoping for the best?

I was really struck by how Tony Fauci answered a question about the Danish study on masks. He basically stated we have many studies showing masks are effective and did not address the Danish study at all. That really bothers me, because the "many studies that show..." are not in evidence AFAIK, and not talking about the Danish study seems evasive. The Danish study doesn't say masking is useless, it just didn't prove that it reduced spread by 50%. People need to understand that, and not dealing with this fact isn't a good look.

[Goose]

Right.  When people say "follow the science", that means that if the data doesn't support your hypothesis that small gatherings are a nexus of spread of the virus, then stop telling people that their small gatherings are spreading the virus.  I'm as guilty as anyone in following the conventional wisdom that small gatherings were bad, but if the data is not there to support it, then the assumption needs to be reassessed.

I am at least as guilty as you are in this regard. Often we see a possible mechanism for spread and assume that mechanism actually functions in "real life" as we hypothesize. Sometimes, we are right, but many times we are not. It may happen not at all, less than we thought, or more than we thought.

I really do wish we would have much better data available in near real time to guide us.
<snip>
Our limited infrastructure was challenged before the fall surge; now it is completely overwhelmed.  But at the least we (our public health and government officials) should be focused on the low-hanging fruit.  Find the activities that are clearly leading to the most infections and restrict or risk-reduce those.  Then repeat the process.



BC

Totally agree with these ideas. As has been commented before, the studies we would hope to see from the State health authorities regarding spread in their jurisdictions just aren't there. The lack of available data naturally creates questions about the degree of transparency in their decision making process. For instance, is buying pinot a problem but syrah not <bad joke>? To what degree do they know what they are doing and to what degree are they guessing and hoping for the best?

I was really struck by how Tony Fauci answered a question about the Danish study on masks. He basically stated we have many studies showing masks are effective and did not address the Danish study at all. That really bothers me, because the "many studies that show..." are not in evidence AFAIK, and not talking about the Danish study seems evasive. The Danish study doesn't say masking is useless, it just didn't prove that it reduced spread by 50%. People need to understand that, and not dealing with this fact isn't a good look.