Something to consider. The @CDCgov and @WHO's contact trace methods are based on direct contact.
They wouldn't know how to use the Gesundheit 2 to save @DrTedros's reputation. Or how to do full traces, including everyone in the room. Or in the next room.
To use smoke.
So, all of those epi studies?
About as useful as @RWalensky 's magical 5 day isolation policy, when trying to rule out airborne transmission.
How about this? You nay-sayers, explain the origin of the 6 foot distance rule. The 15 minute transmission rule used today.
I can explain where they come from, can you?
Sorry if I am being aggressive.
We have sat around for far too long. I am calling it like I see it, and it's all self-reinforcing bullshit.
I am talking directly to you, John Conly and others of his ilk.
Get out of the damn way.
Let me show you what I mean by self-reinforcing.
In this fascinating treatment of a lost case of Marburg, the authors explore how the wife got infected.
How NOT to Science. A time travel thread and magic.
This is Helmut Traindl - the engineer who devised the procedure behind Walach CO2 study that was retracted after 16 days: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…
I looked at your thread @moog77 . The reason that epidemiological didn't work (cases continued to go up)? Is the same reason the 2023 Cochrane fails, ironically, after you touted it as the "gold standard."
Not because clean air doesn't reduce cases. It empirically does. It
Got a "oops, outside air can get you" study. Coming out of Beijing University of Technology - taking airborne transmission seriously.
They rented 50 rooms of a building. Did some very cool CFD work - then, be still my heart,
followed it up with tracer gas experimentation.
See room 303 above? 403 and 503 got whatever came out of 303.
With studies like these, there are so many variables. But, if I lived in an apartment, I would set have at least a PC fan CR Box next to those open windows.
Or an HRV set up in that window. And for sure a PC fan CR box next to the front door for under the door airflow.