On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 3:45:06 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda Jibini
I was just reading an interview the other day with a Nobel
Prize winning biologist, who explained that there is *zero*
peer reviewed evidence that social distancing (which is an idea
that goes back 20-30 years as a response to precisely this kind
of pandemic) actually accomplished *anything*. It might. But
there's *no* science to back that up.
You don't catch this virus, or most, by breathing it in. You
catch it by handling things people who have it have handled,
and touching your face. That, from what we can tell (with the
lack of real research), is overwhelmingly the vector. Standing
six feet away from someone won't help at all if you then touch
the same doorknob they did.
But I suppose you know more about it han the Nobel Prize
winners in the field. Or at least believe you do. (I know one
buy who is firmly convinced that figuring out how to use the
graphing functions in Excel makes him an epidemiologist, so
you're in good company, I guess..)
I missed that interview.
It didn't get a lot of mainstream coverage.
I'm certainly aware that we are reminded that thorough
handwashing is very important for stopping the spread of colds
and the flu - and, indeed, it certainly has been mentioned in
connection with the current pandemic.
And that is backed by solid, peer reviewed research. Soap (and
synthetic detergents - syndets, to use the trade term - which are
far more common than actual soap) apparently chemically unzips
pretty much anything germ-like in short order.
Unlike social distancing.
However, the current pandemic has, as one of its results, made
hand sanitizers hard to obtain (along with masks and toilet
Oddly, my employer has no problems at all obtaining the first two.
We've had sufficient stock to meet demands all along. (Toilet paper
is a special case because of all the people working from home right
now. We have *no* problem getting the stuff we use in the stores.)
Also, the importance of washing hands had not been
claimed to make covering coughs and sneezes irrelevant to
controlling the spread of colds or the flu, so I don't see why
this is not an issue with regards to COVID-19.
Coughing and sneezing aren't the major vectors for this or most
viral infections. You don't get it by inhaling it. You get it by
handling things that have been handled by someone who has it, then
touching your face. The news reports about magic droplets that
travel across continential divides and kick your door in to infect
you are 99.99999% hype, propaganda and bullshit.
If there really are Nobel Prize winners who say otherwise, I'd
be interested in hearing about it.
This particular individual isn't saying it doesn't work. He's
saying we don't know, because no peer reviewed research has ever
been done on the subject. And he's saying that the economic damage
of the lockdowns (also completely unsupported by peer reviewed
research) may well outweigh the medical damage already.
(Of course, even a Nobel
Prize winner can be wrong, at least on subjects *outside* of his
own field; Linus Pauling comes to mind.)
Indeed, *especially* on subjects outside their own field. This
particular individual (I *really* wish I'd save the link), however,
was a (IIRC) "sturctural biologist" who had spent his career doing
research on epidemics and how they spread, and how their run their
course. He was 100% in his field, and has the Nobel Prize to back
it up. (He's also *not* saying "everybody but me is wrong," he's
pointing out serious flaws in the "logic" of the people pushing the
panic button, and the utter lack of science behind what they're
claiming. In other worse, if you have any idea who science works,
he shounds damned credible, unlike the doom criers.)
Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)
Vacation photos from Iceland: