zlacker

>>Robin8+(OP)
> In fact, I don't see a single story that I personally feel should not have been removed.

I don't understand why this story was removed: "It turns out the six-feet social-distancing rule had no scientific basis", >>39200511

On a forum with an overwhelmingly science-minded audience, it bothers me that an important topic like that is deemed untouchable.

>>ggdG+ib
Personally, I thought it was already pretty well established that the six-foot rule was based on poor science. I remember hearing about that years ago.

>>BobaFl+en
The thing is, you're not even wrong. The six foot rule was based on what the best understanding of the experts was at the time, and probably saved thousands of lives. Just like forced masking up probably saved tens of thousands of lives. Both were great examples of science, which readily admits to tuning when new evidence comes into play.

However, because there's a right wing cult around Donald Trump, whose fortunes were hurt by the pandemic, the six foot rule and masking and vaccines are set up as straw men and attacked by a gigantic and well funded and organized horde of proxies, including the #1 media network in the US. It goes something like this: because a particular individual got COVID, that's proof that vaccines are not 100% effective and so They Lied To Us For Nefarious Purposes. Or because this particular individual stood 6 feet away and still got COVID, that's evidence that Fauci Is In A Conspiracy With The Chinese. Or because this particular individual survived COVID, it's just a cold. Or because masks are not 100% effective when not worn securely, they are not effective. And on and on.

So it's not unreasonable or unlikely that you heard a thing about bad science and six feet of social distance or whatever. But hearing a thing, and the thing being true from foundational motivations of actual science, are very different right now.

>>felixg+9B
>The six foot rule was based on what the best understanding of the experts was at the time, and probably saved thousands of lives.

You can't just make up the beneficial effects of something as you go. Can you cite some randomized controlled trials that support your claim?

>Just like forced masking up probably saved tens of thousands of lives.

One year ago, a huge Cochrane meta-analysis of the available RCTs regarding masking has put that idea to bed: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

>>ggdG+o01
literally quoting from that meta-analysis, which does not include many clinical trials that have demonstrated an impact:

"Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed."

Example very large study published in a reputable journal: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069?cookieSe...

>>felixg+Ac1
>literally quoting from that meta-analysis, which does not include many clinical trials that have demonstrated an impact:

Yes. To their credit, they only looked at randomized controlled trials.

>"Key messages We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed."

In other words: the RCTs don't show an effect to a significant degree.

>>ggdG+hj1
no, it literally says that they do not have a conclusion. You are trying to read it differently because you have an agenda. Please do science instead.