Thread by @jmcrookston

I don't care enough to find it, but someone once said "whether it's airborne will get sorted out later"

They also in mid-2020 authored this:

I can tell you if anyone wants to look more deeply (I couldn't be bothered) here are the bits to look at:

Infection rate def higher.

CFR would be interesting to research.

Agree, strong efforts. Check hospital spread. Likely high.

This is multiple falsities.

First, yes, HCW in Wuhan caught it at a high rate. Before they all jumped up to airborne precautions and then rate dropped.

Second, it is not the case that "most were likely community acquired" and someone should check that footnote.

R0 number falsity again (this article mid-2020 though, remember). I won't even bother to address right now. SARS2 will have R number if include asympts over 5, 6 and well into range of measles. Because of overdispersion, those that dont spread mean those that do the R0 is over 10

SARS-CoV-2 virus in air was recorded a few months later.

I have a thread on SARS in air, MERS in air, SARS-CoV-2 in air, and other viruses in air. This issue is dead.

I am not poking through all these metareviews on p E806, but check their conclusions. When they say N95 not better than surgical (IF they even say that) they often say the evidence was low quality, and it's pointing towards the N95 being better, but just isn't stat significant.

The usual "we may run out". Should not be issue now. In fairness this is mid-2020, though.

Tired of donning/doffing args. Studies showing potential reinfection by donning doffing are weak (cover mask find on fingers etc)

Probably cited b/c allow an explanation of why people getting sick while wearing surgical masks (which per droplet theory are supposed to protect)

This crap is all garbage. Go pull it yourself.

HCW may be stupid and cannot learn to use masks. Very nice.

Self-contam I talked about.

Take time to learn to use the mask? Okay, so what? This is a stupid comment.

This is an insane statement. More complex regimens yes, greater time and might make errors, but you apply the more complex because the risk is higher.

Footnote 45 tested two types ebola protective gear, found more mistakes in the enhanced - thats bc its more complicated!

You wouldn't use the basic because you make fewer mistakes! Cart before horse right here.

ANYWAY footnote 45 just noted more training reduced errors, that was the point of that article, not a selection of PPE standards!!

In the context of science as a whole this statement is just ... I mean ... what do you even say? People can choose what level is appropriate? I hope the workers get to choose, then.

... It's in the air so you gotta deal with it in the air.

AH HA (I do these as I go, so I didn't read ahead) here is

1. the crux of the matter
2. the attitude from these people

all in one quote. I need say nothing more.

This is rich.

Totally agree with this, and I'm done.

I didn't even mean to get into this stupid article.

Here's the link, go enjoy.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

p.s. I bet all those footnotes about "harms of masks" are the same studies I've already critiqued elsewhere.

Happy Sunday, Happy Easter, wear a good mask, #COVIDisAirborne

Be safe

Here are 46-50 so I can check later

my thread on that was here, go backwards up it

Here was what was cited in that paper

better just post it here

Looks like only Foo repeats. Guess I'll have to poke through new ones some time

Wonder if I can get funding for a series of "living reviews" on this topic from a large international non-governmental org?

I mean, there must be one out there ...

the question is ...

WHO?