2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit - Hallo friendsDARMO NEWS TODAY, In the article you read this time with the title 2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit, We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article culture, Article economy, Article health, Article healthy tips, Article news, Article politics, Article sports, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : 2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit
link : 2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit

2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit

I'm becoming increasingly aware of the harm social distancing causes. The surface has been merely scratched here on the damaging effects of "social distancing" to our society as a whole. Is this experiment in anti social behaviour going to be worth the damage it will inevitably do? 

 Early on in this crisis there was a  voice, quickly silenced, speaking about the harmful effects of social distancing and the poor science behind it. That voice emanated from Dr Joel Kettner and it was the CBC that silenced him (see sidebar)

Dr Kettner

 Dr Kettner is not a fringe or controversial character. He is professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases. 

"I worry about the consequences of social distancing. I worry about people who are losing their jobs. 

I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that."

Those are concerns that I share. Many others do as well. We've been told that this damage to our mental emotional and social well being is all justified by the virus. And flattening the curve.
And all the other memes that have been recently inflicted on us all.

I spent considerable time to find some real research on "social distancing" and it's effectiveness that predated the Covid-1984 crisis. Lots of recent info, but, at this point that info is being advanced to push an agenda, that's clear enough. So it's best avoided. 

Dr Kettner had this to say on the science of 'social distancing"

The other part is we actually do not have that much good evidence for the social distancing methods. It was just a couple of review in the CDC emerging infectious disease journal, which showed that although some of them might work, we really don’t know to what degree and the evidence is pretty weak.

Not only is the evidence to support 'social distancing' weak, while the damage from it is nearly incalculable but very well documented, it's darn hard to locate. But, I managed to find the study linked below, I suggest you have a look. It's worth your time.

2008-  The Journal of Infections Medicine: Exploration of the Effectiveness of Social Distancing on Respiratory Pathogen Transmission Implicates Environmental Contributions

Abstract

Background. In both military and civilian settings, transmission of respiratory pathogens may be due to person-to-person and environmental contributions. This possibility was explored in a military training setting, where rates of febrile respiratory illness (FRI) often reach epidemic levels.

Methods. Population size and FRI rates were monitored over 10 months in the units of 50–90 individuals. Some units were open to the influx of potentially infectious convalescents (hereafter referred to as “open units,” and some were closed to such an influx (hereafter referred to as “closed units”). Virologic testing and polymerase chain reaction analysis were used to detect adenovirus on surface structures.

Results. The odds ratio (OR) associated with FRI in closed units, compared with open units, was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–1.28). The OR in units with a population greater than the median size, compared with units with a population lower than the median size was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.23–1.55). Between 5% and 9% of surface samples obtained from selected units harbored viable adenovirus.

Conclusions. FRI rates were not reduced in units that were closed to potentially contagious individuals. These findings imply that the primary source of the pathogen is likely environmental rather than human, and they underscore what is known about other virus types. Diligence in identifying the relative roles of different transmission routes is suggested for civilian settings similar to those described in the current study.

The conclusion is clear Infection Rates were not reduced in units that were closed to contagious individuals- Plainly stated there was no infection rate reduction when social distancing was imposed on one of  the two control groups.

In the present study, we achieved a large measure of experimentally manipulated social distance within a military recruit population. Because the primary means of transmission was presumed to be person-to-person transmission, we expected that groups that were socially distanced from potentially infectious individuals who were new to the group would incur rates of illness lower than those noted for groups that were not socially distanced

Discussion

The original hypothesis was rejected. There was not a statistically significant difference between the FRI rates in the open and closed units as a whole, although the tendency was for the closed units to exhibit higher rates. The rejection of the hypothesis suggests that the primary route of transmission of FRI is not via the MCU/PCU recycling protocol (i.e., not via person-to-person contact between unit members and members newly introduced to the unit [i.e., potentially infectious convalescents]). The social distancing instituted in this setting was not successful in decreasing FRI rates.

In plain talk.. The closed, socially distanced, group was more likely to exhibit higher infection rates. Based on the outcome of the study the original hypothesis was rejected!

Related:

• Social Distancing As Anti Social Behaviour Self Imposed/Enforced by the Desire to Conform

Social Distancing is a form of social control- This reality has to be understood.
We're told it's necessary to stop the spread of a virus.  But it comes at a very high cost that is never mentioned.

• Trump, Making Sense? Social Distancing Contrary To Human Nature; Loneliness & Isolation Kill

So important is social connection to humans that the lack of it is terrible for our health. 

• Lock Downs To Do More Damage then Virus: Shielding Elderly & Vulnerable A Huge Fail

  “In fact, the damaging effect now of lockdown is going to outweigh the damaging effect of coronavirus.”  
   "The second issue of lockdown is that it's making the public scared to engage with healthcare. People are avoiding going to GPs and hospitals because they believe there is so much infection there that they might catch it [coronavirus]. That’s really damaging.”

Earlier today:

• James Corbett: Bill Gates' Plan To Vaccinate the Globe

• May 09/20: Snowin' and Blowin' White Out Conditions- Graper Growers Using Helicopters To Warm Crops

Thus Article 2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit

That's an article 2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article 2008 Study: Infection Rates Not Reduced By Social Distancing - Harm Outweighs Benefit with the link address https://darmonewst.blogspot.com/2020/05/2008-study-infection-rates-not-reduced.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: