Whether "community spread" or whether "somehow acquired through an infection from laboratory tests itself"
I'll tell you where from ...
"I think this is an airborne virus and it's more infectious than we give it credit for"
My God, it's full of stars.
Wrong
No it isn't.
Then what's the point of these guidances?
Sounds like WHO. Here, do this. But if you do and you die, that's on you.
Another
How's that working out?
You aren't helping.
Fundamentally different modes? It's more infectious. You'll see more through the air. It doesn't grow wings. Delete this PDF.
Then goes on to pull from WHO (NOTE: of course people pull WHO guidance, hence it is important to change that) and Scotland, for some reason, to set PPE for health care, which we know is all wrong.
Delete this PDF.
Side note, they point to the hierarchy of controls, which would say to PHO that you ought to use airborne isolation rooms before masks.
But here's the kicker you came for, HCW in a patient room just need surgical masks.
Meanwhile site is full of "how to put on your PPE" which is fine generally, but ludicrous in the context of not wearing an N95 for airborne infectious disease.
And when studies show even when ppl study it, they cannot cough/force virus off a mask.
And here is their garbage summary of the aerosol conference. Garbage b/c they do not believe in airborne spread
@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