[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

Hi @officestudents @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

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
Patriotism is an interesting concept in that it’s excepted to mean something positive to all of us and certainly seen as a morally marketable trait that can fit into any definition you want for it.+


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

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


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.