[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"

You're never going to know if its because of the 2m with that person, or being in some small room with someone else, because nobody is looking for air spread. Conclusion is that it's the close contact.
Why? because EPI STUDIES ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR DROPLET

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.
https://t.co/cjJvGVY4Vr
That's why if you read the CDC reports, it's rare for them to analyse beyond 2m. Usually its asian studies that do. And even then barely (the South Korean one, even still, used droplet language).

SK study:

https://t.co/QblvVRvIda
This is why only 2 rows on planes are contact traced. A few studies trace outside, and find contacts outside 2 rows, but most don't.

I've posted about articles saying 2 row not good enough

https://t.co/u6mo07FEVy
That short article (a terrible one, btw) cited TWO references that said 2 rows may not work.

https://t.co/bcdFAObflu
On top of that, there are others I haven't ever had time to post.

Hertzberg 2016. Says two 2 rows misses cases. See conclusion at bottom.
Mangili 2015, again noting hits found 7 rows distant.

This is just whatever snippet I quickly found.
Goldblatt 2013.

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.
And consider that US prison report (in CDC journal) that found transmission limit should be 15 minutes in 24 hours.

They suggested that rule (on the basis of ONE person, by the way), BEFORE considering air spread.

That's also insane.
These rules do not work because it ain't about the droplets.

https://t.co/qRt8bJLV0f

More from Society

It is simply not correct to point fingers at wind & solar energy as we try to understand the situation in TX. The system (almost) had a plan for weather (almost) like this. 1/x


It relied on very little wind energy - that was the plan. It relied on a lot of natural gas - that was the plan. It relied on all of its nuclear energy - that was the plan. 2/x

There was enough natural gas, coal and nuclear capacity installed to survive this event - it was NOT "forced out" by the wind energy expansion. It was there. 3/x

Wind, natural gas, coal and nuclear plants all failed to deliver on their expectations for long periods of time. The biggest gap was in natural gas! The generators were there, but they were not able to deliver. 4/x

It may be fair to ask why there is so much wind energy in ERCOT if we do NOT expect it to deliver during weather events like this, but that is an entirely different question - and one with a lot of great answers!! 5/x

You May Also Like