> You can think that, and you were right, but it was a justifiable perspective in the absence of better data.
A weakly justifiable perspective that was away from the consensus view at the time and caused harm (probably reduced compliance with the reasonable measures, in addition to all the secondary harms).
I had cops threaten to give me a massive ticket for standing in the middle of a field with a telescope by myself. Said cops were 100% of my human contact outside my household in March. This probably wasn't our best enforcement bet.
> there is strong evidence that Omicron is contageous enough through close proximity even outdoors for short periods of time
I don't buy this. I'm in a test-100%-weekly environment and this happening any more than rarely isn't compatible with our observations.
> The original COVID variants weren't that contagious, but if they were equally threatening and as infectious as Omicron, it would have been a completely correct policy.
We already had a decent estimate of R0 as 2.0-3.5 even in dense environs, and consensus was already forming around a 2.4 "best guess". We also knew that indoor was the vast majority of that 2.4.
This is extremely anecdotal, but I have a friend group who are all extremely careful (no socialization; grocery delivery only; other measures that many would consider too extreme)
But we're in a mountainous region and it's winter, and we all ski. I know 3 people that got Omicron and the only close proximity to people they had in the time period was chair lift lineup and the chair lift itself.
A weakly justifiable perspective that was away from the consensus view at the time and caused harm (probably reduced compliance with the reasonable measures, in addition to all the secondary harms).
I had cops threaten to give me a massive ticket for standing in the middle of a field with a telescope by myself. Said cops were 100% of my human contact outside my household in March. This probably wasn't our best enforcement bet.
> there is strong evidence that Omicron is contageous enough through close proximity even outdoors for short periods of time
I don't buy this. I'm in a test-100%-weekly environment and this happening any more than rarely isn't compatible with our observations.
> The original COVID variants weren't that contagious, but if they were equally threatening and as infectious as Omicron, it would have been a completely correct policy.
We already had a decent estimate of R0 as 2.0-3.5 even in dense environs, and consensus was already forming around a 2.4 "best guess". We also knew that indoor was the vast majority of that 2.4.