@ExtroSpecteur I presume he is saying airborne mitigations should be equally alongside touch or droplet.
No, there is no evidence for any. As I keep saying, but happy to say again, for thousands of years people flipflopped between "it's touch" and "it floats but generates in swamps because ...
@ExtroSpecteur ... they did not understand pathogens. Once they did, referring to respiratory illness, they simply assumed it was droplet because most infections can be traced to an infected having been near the index case. Droplet became an idea with Chapin in 1910, to explain why one needed..
@ExtroSpecteur ...to be close. However, first, their idea of droplet was not necessarily 2 metres. Their idea of airborne was many kilometers, so their discussion of close has to be understood in this context. Two, their investigations were crude, by the 30s air people like Wells
It's always funny to me that virologists get everything and transmission so wrong. I guess because they work with viruses they think they know everything about them. 🤷
The sad part is we would assume that because they work with viruses they know everything about them.
*everything about
Virologists don't really work on transmission. Maybe sometimes they spin a tub and flip some in the air or something. But they don't really know what's going on. And then the doctors know the biological clinical side of things but they don't work on transmission either.
Just remember the ladder of denial and elite panic myth means if you are hearing a 2 it's a 4. If a 4 it's a 6. If a 6 pack your bags. You'll never hear 8 and up the TV will just play static