1.You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe the germ theory of disease is correct?
2. If so, what does the theory predict about the likelihood of transmitting a disease from one person to the next as distance between them increases.
3. More precisely can you write down an approximate mathematical model for how the probability changes with distance?
4. What do you think the principal uncertainties are in such a model?
5. How are those uncertainties relevant to the present circumstance?
2. If so, what does the theory predict about the likelihood of transmitting a disease from one person to the next as distance between them increases.
Duh, I dunno. I'm just an idiot like you said. It goes up if you spit on your hand and rub it on the other guys tongue? Or perhaps I should say there will be fewer infections. Of course, smart guys like you don't need a model to tell you that, it's common sense. But a model would be useful if it could accurately predict (a) how many infections I could expect without such mitigation and (b) how such mitigation would reduce that number so that it would support reasoned decisions in how effective such mitigation would be. Saying 'we'll have a bajillion without them and only a gazllion with them' is what we got, and it doesn't actually match up does it? Even after they adjusted it down three times.
3. More precisely can you write down an approximate mathematical model for how the probability changes with distance?
No. I'll guess it's something like the inverse square of distance. But that's just a guess, my experience generating models are physics based and have to do with electromagnetic effects taking into account stochastic performance of nonlinear materials, not biological science. Please, write down your equation. I can say that if my models had produced results that turned out to be orders of magnitude off from what measurements ultimately yielded I'd have been somewhat embarrassed. That seems not to be a problem though for these modelers.
4. What do you think the principal uncertainties are in such a model?
Stuff the model maker doesn't know. Which is lots and lots about this virus.
5. How are those uncertainties relevant to the present circumstance?
The models were built lacking adequate source data for the fundamental characteristics of the element being modeled based primarily on the experiences in Italy which is turning out to be quite an outlier. So they are garbage. They will be generically correct (distance = fewer infections! yay!) but way off on specifics. And so they are.
So I'll ask you a question. The value of a model is how well it reflects the real data it was meant to model. If it doesn't, it's worthless. Do you disagree? Is there any scenario where you'd say 'these models didn't really help'?