[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
The Equality and Diversity section of your job application has 'gender' in what appears to be a list of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
However...
1/15
However, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
Sex is the protected characteristic under the Act, but that is not on your list.
2/15
You then ask for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:
Male
Female.
3/15
Again, 'gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.
https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u
4/15
Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.
https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF
'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.
5/15
\u0926\u0947\u0936 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u092a\u0939\u0932\u0940 \u092c\u093e\u0930 \U0001f1ee\U0001f1f3
— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) March 12, 2021
\u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u0915\u0940 \u0938\u094d\u092a\u0947\u0936\u0932 \u0915\u094d\u0932\u093e\u0938 \u0932\u0917\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940 @ArvindKejriwal \u0938\u0930\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0964
\u090f\u0915 \u092a\u093e\u0920\u094d\u092f\u0915\u094d\u0930\u092e \u092c\u0928\u093e\u092f\u093e \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u093e, \u091c\u093f\u0938\u0938\u0947 \u092c\u091a\u094d\u091a\u094b\u0902 \u092e\u0947\u0902 \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0942\u091f \u0915\u0930 \u0926\u0947\u0936\u092d\u0915\u094d\u0924\u093f \u092d\u0930\u0940 \u091c\u093e\u090f\u0917\u0940\u0964 pic.twitter.com/iO6WMBh4YG
Tolstoy, found it both stupid and immoral. It is stupid because every patriot holds his own country to be the best, which obviously negates all other countries.+
It is immoral because it enjoins us to promote our country’s interests at the expense of all other countries, employing any means, including war. It is thus at odds with the most basic rule of morality, which tells us not to do to others what we would not want them to do to us+
My sincere belief is that patriotism of a personal nature, which does not impede on personal and physical liberties of any other, is not only welcome but perhaps somewhat needed.
But isn’t adherence to a more humane code of life much better than nationalistic patriotism?+
Göring said, “people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”+
You May Also Like
If everyone was holding bitcoin on the old x86 in their parents basement, we would be finding a price bottom. The problem is the risk is all pooled at a few brokerages and a network of rotten exchanges with counter party risk that makes AIG circa 2008 look like a good credit.
— Greg Wester (@gwestr) November 25, 2018
The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.
This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.
The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."
This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.