[quote sausagedogststandupandtakeover]@kellehi
Here you go.
[[https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/213573/coronavirus-more-likely-spread-inside-through]]/
[[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-risk-of-catching-covid-19-inside-vs-outside]]ll_5ecd3aeec5b6de82df1e2ef8[/quote]
I don't need a paper to tell me that Covid is more easily spread inside than outside. It's obvious to even the most simple minded person. My whole point is covid is spread by people going out of their house, full stop.
And quantitative dammit, quantitative... How many cases/deaths as a result of people breaking the rules and meeting indoors as a fraction of our population?? Not 'Uhhhh, there's the proof it's more likely'. Talk about teaching people to sck eggs
You are completely missing the point of my last post to you.
Here it is again. I have highlighted the parts I'd like to draw your attention to...
There are many activities that people like to participate in whilst they go about their daily lives that have an element of risk of death or serious injury. Even things as mundane as having a bath compared to having a shower.
The question is not whether activity X carries more of a risk of death than not doing activity X, but whether that risk is substantial, or that risk outweighs the benefits compared to the quality of life gained...
There have been 35 pages of 'unsubstantiated vagueness' and yet nobody has provided anything quantitative on the numbers of infections that occur whilst meeting in private homes, however there is ample media on the following:
- The NHS placing untested covid positive patients into care homes, resulting in a huge number of deaths
- The NHS infecting huge numbers of patients shortly after being admitted to hospital for treatment of non-covid conditions...
- A number of examples of factories, warehouses, etc which got in the media because someone superspread Covid amongst the workers
That is because there is nothing quantitative to look at except the media reporting of these. You would have expected the government to do cost/benefit studies on the cost to the quality of life versus benefit of staying home alone. But they didn't do any of those. They just assumed simplistically, as you do, that when you stay home, then you reduce the spread of covid...
Perhaps in an ideal world, where I implied above, where absolutely everyone doesn't go out, then it might work. But life isn't like that. It is not physically possible to stay home and not go out.
People need to go out. They need to go to work in supermarkets. They need hospital treatment. They need to take the dog to the toilet. Many reasons...
Nahhhhh... you don't care about those. Those are all 'allowed activities' under 'THE LAW'. Doing those things can't possibly be the substantial cause of the spread of covid. It must be because of bad people. Bad people who have spent the whole year alone and under house arrest, begging for some semblance of human contact.
You are somehow desperate to prove that the major driver of Covid deaths is all about people breaking 'the rulez'. Yep, millions of people have been told they should not meet other people indoors and we are expected to believe that one or two people meeting indoors together is the major driver of Covid granny deaths, and not the actions of the NHS which are shortly to be unravelled in an upcoming enquiry for all to see.
Your papers say nothing about the numbers of Covid cases/deaths that have occurred as a result of people following the rules, going to work, being done in by the NHS, etc etc
Also, please don't try to claim that Imperial paper is evidence of the government having done such studies in support of their decision to lockdown. That article is dated late January, long after the last lockdown was emplaced.