Dr. Courtney said:
Science is about data, not authoritative decrees.
Where is the convincing scientific data that a group of more than 50 people is more dangerous than a smaller group as long as all the other precautions are taken? If the sick people stay home, everyone washes their hands early and often, avoids touching common surfaces, and practices other procedures relative to the spread of respiratory illnesses, what is the problem?
Until I see the data, I'm going to church. Because my faith tells me I should, and the 1st Amendment tells me I can.
Show me the data, or keep your shame to yourself.
Ygggdrasil said:
There is quite a bit of data supporting the effectiveness of instituting social distancing policies on stopping disease spreads from studies of past pandemics/epidemics, such as the
1918 flu pandemic...
A
study of the 1918 flu pandemic shows the "flattening the curve" strategy exemplified in studying two cities, Philadelphia (which did not ban public gatherings until late in the epidemic) and St Louis which was early to ban public gatherings and institute social distancing ...
Lets you believe that this is cherry picking data, here's a chart from a
study comparing
death rates from the 1918 flu in various cities based on when they began to institute government-enforced (not voluntary) responses such as closing schools or instituting social distancing through bans of large gatherings:
No doubt social distancing flattens the curve. The question at hand is how much social distancing is "enough" to flatten the curve, and whether steps that violate 1st Amendment rights on broad geographies (whole states or countries) are necessary. One thing the data shows is that social distancing steps that are not implemented in a specific city until the disease is confirmed IN THAT CITY are sufficient to flatten the curve. One thing that data does not show is that mandatory church closures are needed to flatten the curve in addition to school closures, restaurant and theater closures, widespread working from home, and improved hygiene measures already in place in the current crisis.
Quoting:
Announcements of school, church, and theater closures were linked in most cities, occurring within a span of ≤6 days in the majority, and this near simultaneity of implementation precludes multivariate analysis or strong inference about the relative importance of the individual NPIs. Early bans on public gatherings were also associated with lower peak excess death rates, but the statistical significance of this result depended on the test used [Table 2, CEPID at time of, and Fig. 2 a]. Of the other NPIs considered (closure of dance halls, other closures, isolation of cases, bans on public funerals, and making influenza notifiable), none showed a statistically significant association between the stage of implementation and the peak or cumulative excess death rates (Table 2, CEPID at time of, and Fig. 2).
Ygggdrasil said:
There is very strong data supporting the effectiveness of government imposition of social distancing (
defined by the CDC as "remaining out of congregate settings, avoiding mass gatherings, and maintaining distance (approximately 6 feet or 2 meters) from others when possible") in attenuating the spread of an epidemic/pandemic disease.
Conclusions based on data in study of social distancing in 1918 need to use the same definitions of social distancing in place in 1918, not the CDC definition in 2020. I'm sure we might all have doubts with claims of an apples to apples comparison of data dependent on Newton's definition of mass and data dependent on Einstein's definition.
A scientific colleague pointed out that the rise of social media and the "hook up" culture provide lots of avenues for the spread of COVID-19. The close physical contact of dating and sexual relationships provides lots more opportunity for transmission than maintaining a 6 ft distance, the absence of touching, handwashing, etc. We should probably be shutting down all the dating apps used for one night stands in high risk areas.
russ_watters said:
Let's try:
In South Korea, most of the cases of Coronavirus come from a single church population. Conservatively, as of this edition of wikipedia, 9,000 of 230,000 members of the church are symptomatic, or
3.9%. That's the best current data we have for your odds of
getting the Coronavirus in church if one person in the congregation gets infected and attends church ("spreading" was an odd choice of words, and a mismatch...). Note: that's more than one location, so the members get around.
Annually, 3 million Americans are injured in car accidents. If every American averages one trip per day, including multi-passenger trips, then one trip to Walmart carries roughly a 0.000092% chance of injury in a car accident. Or
0.000046% on the way to Walmart.
https://www.driverknowledge.com/car-accident-statistics/
That's a good start, but it misses lots of information specific to my situation and makes a number of unjustified assumptions. There are only 3 identified cases so far in the relevant county, and none in the relevant town. The data above suggests social distancing is not necessary until the disease is known to be in a specific city. Further, many more protections are in place in the town, county, and specific church that were not in place in the South Korea case. You are assuming that the church I'll attend is like the one in South Korea where the disease was propagated and not like the churches in South Korea where it was not spread.
The fact is, about 75% of the church I plan to attend this Sunday will attend online, leaving only 25% in person. That leaves much more room in a large building to maintain a 6 foot distance. The church has also implemented a careful and well considered plan of specific steps to prevent the spread of infectious disease including insisting that symptomatic people remain home, a safe distance be maintained between attendees, and that attendees refrain from touching. This is in stark contrast to the South Korean case, where
"On 18 February, South Korea confirmed its 31st case in Daegu, a member of the
Shincheonji religious organisation. The patient continued to go to gatherings of Shincheonji days after showing symptoms, which are typically held with people in very close proximity and include physical contact of the members."
Here are the CDC recommendations for churches in communities where the COVID-19 transmission is currently "none to minimal."
From: Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission, CDC, 2020.