The fourth review is out (1).
All @WHO sponsored with your tax dollars (2).
Unsurprisingly after throwing airborne transmission out the window (ha), they conclude everything is close contact.
Not to belabour the obvious, but close contact's not a mode.
All @WHO sponsored with your tax dollars (2).
Unsurprisingly after throwing airborne transmission out the window (ha), they conclude everything is close contact.
Not to belabour the obvious, but close contact's not a mode.
I'm not reviewing this, but just a note:
The primary thrust of the paper is CLOSE CONTACT. That's defined as within 6 feet for 15 minutes.
BUT
nobody has EVER come up with
1. a coherent reason for 6 feet, or
2. for any reason at all for 15 minutes.
Enjoy the paper.
The primary thrust of the paper is CLOSE CONTACT. That's defined as within 6 feet for 15 minutes.
BUT
nobody has EVER come up with
1. a coherent reason for 6 feet, or
2. for any reason at all for 15 minutes.
Enjoy the paper.
The entire field of study is chasing its tail, or worse.
Totally ridiculous.
It would be amusing to laugh at if people weren't getting hurt.
Totally ridiculous.
It would be amusing to laugh at if people weren't getting hurt.
BTW there will always be stronger statistical support for "close contact" because aerosols are most concentrated near the emitter.
This is what was seen for 120 years, but was misinterpreted as "droplet" which is just an incorrect physical hypothesis. Then became a money issue
This is what was seen for 120 years, but was misinterpreted as "droplet" which is just an incorrect physical hypothesis. Then became a money issue
#COVIDisAirborne
Sign petition at pinned tweet: @covidisairborne
Be safe. Watch out indoors. If in close contact, wear a good mask.
Sign petition at pinned tweet: @covidisairborne
Be safe. Watch out indoors. If in close contact, wear a good mask.
Two posts back shows how you can get statistical results, which you might theoretically call "evidence-based", but still incorrectly interpret the forest.
Oh, don't forget p 0.05 is 30% false positive, and these "evidence-based" studies are often meta analyses, which are tricky
Oh, don't forget p 0.05 is 30% false positive, and these "evidence-based" studies are often meta analyses, which are tricky
It's a fascinating intersection of a field of study's established belief, a misinterpreted physical situation that provides valid stats (sometimes), practical cost requirements in hospitals, and RCTs on physical behaviour with confounders, then a layer of meta analyses.
Problem is, when challenged with evid that didn't fit, rather than making exceptions (only measles, AGMP, ppl catch at airport gates) they shld have rethought hypothesis.
People showed air for say 80 yrs, but ignored.
And droplet was never a true physical phenomenon anyway.
People showed air for say 80 yrs, but ignored.
And droplet was never a true physical phenomenon anyway.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
