On the airborne argument, fundamentally the reason they won't agree to ever change.
From UK IPS
Note the concern with breaking ranks from national guidance, which of course would apply similarly at national up to international level.
That's not the most fun you can have with that document.
File name is Healthcare-workers-and-FFP3-Version-2.1-27-01-21.pdf for anyone who wants to find it online.
Not true/excuses...
Hmm name is familiar...
People know exactly why ICU is lower (they wear masks, patients less infective by then) and why it's higher for admin/etc staff (no masks, but exposed to COVID-19).
Admitted later in same doc
No viable virus = old excuse come up with new ones already.
Social distancing blame in a hospital? Or, give em masks. But hey we're not here to stop spread are we?
That name again ...
Same Loeb as is running an RCT on masks right now.
Hrm, geniuses at work here.
In what is for IPC, even for them, a huge reach (although maybe not as much a reach as for rats spreading SARS), they argue don't bother with masks because
MASKS DO NOT COVER YOUR EYES
(so why bother w the mask anyway, I guess is how that argument must end)
Also inconsistent: ventilate the hell out of the space to reduce particles in the air, but don't give them masks.
What?
So, only in rooms with AGMPs do you wear masks? But you should ventilate everywhere? Because stuff floats? But NOT wear masks? But what? But I'm dizzy now.
HEY DONT TOUCH THAT MASK until you have performed this
492 step process
and assessed
all the risks
because that's FIFTY CENTS RIGHT THERE BUDDY
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@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