It also partially explains why lockdowns don't work as well as intuition would suggest. Being stuck inside = near surfaces where it can spread + away from the Sun (which destroys the virus AND provides you vitamin D).
Edit:
To the person who asked, yes, the "stated" purpose of the lockdowns is to reduce/prevent gatherings of people, with the alleged goal of reducing the number of contaminated surfaces and the such. Which is why intuition would suggest it ought to have at least some effect (i.e., less contact with people = less opportunity for spread). The data clearly shows it doesn't have the alleged intended effects though (for example, see some of Tom Woods' many podcasts breaking down the data on lockdowns and mask mandates).
Combined with the above partial reasoning (above the "edit"), the matter of the fact is, unless you pull a full on "wield-people-into-their-houses" CCP-type of measures, people are still going to have (limited) contact with others, which seems to be sufficient for the spread of this particular virus.
there is so little understanding about viruses when it comes to the general public.
We are exposed everyday to viruses that if they some how over whelmed are body defenses would kill. they dont becouse we encounter them in such low amounts they are unable to do anything against the immune system. generally when we catch something it becouse we encounter a viral lode that over whelms the defenses of the body....telling some one to hide indoors away from the sun just makes a smaller exposure more dangerous.....this is my uneducated assessment and I admit that I might be one of the uneducated with this assessment.
It also partially explains why lockdowns don't work as well as intuition would suggest. Being stuck inside = near surfaces where it can spread + away from the Sun (which destroys the virus AND provides you vitamin D).
Edit:
To the person who asked, yes, the "stated" purpose of the lockdowns is to reduce/prevent gatherings of people, with the alleged goal of reducing the number of contaminated surfaces and the such. Which is why intuition would suggest it ought to have at least some effect (i.e., less contact with people = less opportunity for spread). The data clearly shows it doesn't have the alleged intended effects though (for example, see some of Tom Woods' many podcasts breaking down the data on lockdowns and mask mandates).
Combined with the above partial reasoning (above the "edit"), the matter of the fact is, unless you pull a full on "wield-people-into-their-houses" CCP-type of measures, people are still going to have (limited) contact with others, which seems to be sufficient for the spread of this particular virus.
there is so little understanding about viruses when it comes to the general public. We are exposed everyday to viruses that if they some how over whelmed are body defenses would kill. they dont becouse we encounter them in such low amounts they are unable to do anything against the immune system. generally when we catch something it becouse we encounter a viral lode that over whelms the defenses of the body....telling some one to hide indoors away from the sun just makes a smaller exposure more dangerous.....this is my uneducated assessment and I admit that I might be one of the uneducated with this assessment.