Comment Re:Depends on ventilation (Score 2, Informative) 289
We don't need a study to prove the obvious.
No, no, no. So many of the covid interventions have been based on the fact that they're obvious so we should do them without question. If they're so obvious it should be really easy to find real world evidence of efficacy.
"It's obvious that limiting your socal interactions will limit spread". Without restrictions covid's R0 number was estimated as between 3 and 4. Without restrictions I probably 'interacted' with upwards of 1000 people per week on the train, in the office, in shops, etc. During lockdown I probably interacted with no more than 10 people per week and yet R0 barely moved to just below 1. Why didn't it drop by a similar proportion to the change in interactions? I know some people still had to go to work but even so that's a huge discrepancy.
"It's obvious that wearing a mask will block some virus". Sounds obvious but then why is there no difference between states who mandated masks and those which didn't? Why was there no step change in infections anywhere when masks became mandatory?
I don't necesarilly disagree with these interventions but "because it's obvious" should never be a reason for not testing hypotheses. If the last 18 months have taught us anything it's that the way infectious diseases spread is far more complex than we ever understood. We've got an amazing opportunity to do actual science to understand it but instead seem to be forcing the virus' behaviour to match our existing models rather than rewriting those models.