[From a chat. Someone asked what the origin for most infection comes from close contact]
From the epi reports where you ask the person what they did for a week, etc, and then find that they were close to a positive at some point, so the conclusion is "aha, close contact"
Every question, etc, asked, is from the point of view that nothing except certain specific viruses (measles, etc.) are airborne.
Because remember, to them, if air, R0 would = a billion.
Right now when people tell you there is no airborne spread remember THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR AIRBORNE SPREAD BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT.
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) December 2, 2020
This is why elevator buttons get blamed instead of aerial transmission - they don't believe in aerial transmission.
SK study:
https://t.co/QblvVRvIda
This is a very important paper.
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) December 2, 2020
Transmission over more than 2m with only 5 min exposure - captured by CCTV.
Contact tracers don't even look for these connections.
Actual articlehttps://t.co/GyTJo5Y1Jb
cc @jljcolorado @kprather88 @DrPieterPeach @DrKatrin_Rabiei @NjbBari3 https://t.co/onPWqvNzhJ
I've posted about articles saying 2 row not good enough
https://t.co/u6mo07FEVy
4
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) January 27, 2021
We will focus on the last para about contact tracing in planes and the two row rule. pic.twitter.com/TKiPdu8KlJ
https://t.co/bcdFAObflu
10
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) January 27, 2021
Its main thrus is not that studies are biased by exposure risks before getting on the plane.
It looked at a number of contact tracing studies. It concluded evidence not strong enough to justify 2 row rule.
** A majority of secondary cases was identified > 2 rows from index pic.twitter.com/ZFhzbGrGbt
Hertzberg 2016. Says two 2 rows misses cases. See conclusion at bottom.

This is just whatever snippet I quickly found.

Just whatever snippet I quickly found.
I haven't even researched this issue. These are just the studies I had lying around.
I can't turn around without bumping into info that refutes droplets. It's insane.

They suggested that rule (on the basis of ONE person, by the way), BEFORE considering air spread.
That's also insane.
https://t.co/qRt8bJLV0f
But guess what?
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) December 12, 2020
When we use the 2 row forward/back rule (droplet) in airplanes, it doesn't work.
When we use droplet 2m rule (which comes from 14 babies in 1981), it doesn't work.
SARS-CoV-2 infects whole rooms, which we are told means airborne, not droplet
Yet still droplet
More from Society

Controversy Has Been Caused By The Digging Of A Narrow Channel By A Resort On A Sandbank Near K. Hinmafushi.

Hinmafushi Council President Shan Ibrahim Stated To Sun That The Resort, Which Dug The Trench Creating A River On The Sandbank, Did Not Have Ownership Over The Sandbank.
Officials From The Island Of Hinmafushi Had Traveled To The Sandbank To Stop The Process Of Digging The Trench When They Became Aware Of It, Said Shan.
Officials Were Now Redepositing The Sand Removed From The Sandbank.
— Ahmed Aznil (@AhmedAznil) January 21, 2021