[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
Sandbank Danger, A Thread
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.
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
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.
Here's how: 🧵
One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.
Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:
https://t.co/tDce0MwO61
Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.
Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):
Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.
If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.
Simple example:
Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant
1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
