3 ms·

> but the assertions aren't fully backed by the researched it links to. To say the least... The article links to https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullart

by IncRnd 6y ago

> but the assertions aren't fully backed by the researched it links to. To say the least... The article links to https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768396 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768396 to support, "Most infectious disease researchers and epidemiologists believe that the coronavirus is mostly spread by airborne droplets". However, the linked study concludes, " All told, current understanding about SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still limited. There are no perfect experimental data proving or disproving droplet vs aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2."

re 6y ago
That's not the conclusion, and cherry-picking those sentences is misleading because makes it sound like the article is citing a totally inconclusive paper. The next sentence is "The balance of evidence, however, seems inconsistent with aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 particularly in well-ventilated spaces."
- gojomo 6y ago
  That "particularly in well-ventilated spaces" is doing a lot of work. In normal times, people spend a lot of time with other people in not-very-well-ventilated spaces - including, unfortunately, many conference-rooms, classrooms, small shops, bars/nightclubs, etc. So in all those actual places, Covid-19 is aerosol-transmissible. Also, in just the few weeks since that JAMA discussion, more actual examples of Covid-19 almost certainly transmitted by aerosols have been compiled; see for instance study/stories linked at: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640 https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640
- IncRnd 6y ago
  I didn't use the word "conclusion". The article does conclude with the sentence I quoted as well as what you quoted. If you honestly read what I wrote, you would see that what I wrote is in the linked page, as is what you wrote, and the sentence from each of our posts is orthogonal to the support that was being sought for the article. I was not restating the conclusion, but showing how the original article was quoting support from a place that did not support what was being said.
prox 6y ago
That is a weird wording on the last sentence, because the virus doesn’t transmit by magic. All epidemiologists I’ve read sofar seem to speak of mostly droplet transmission with some role for aerosols, which is indeed still studied afaik.
- autokad 6y ago
  there is a growing number of those that believe the virus also transmits airborne. droplet != airborne.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Any good links for that? I haven’t seen anything beyond speculation that suggests that, and the patterns of infection in places I’m aware of aren’t consistent with airborne.
    - gojomo 6y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aerosols-indoors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aeroso...
  - prox 6y ago
    Aerosols are basically floating particles with virus, which is not airborne, but still carries the virus a lot further.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  I agree. That is why the article for this post is so odd. It links to many pages that do not support what is being stated. It's almost as if they chose 100 random places to link, possibly from only looking at the first hits on google searches.

by IncRnd 6y ago

re 6y ago

That's not the conclusion, and cherry-picking those sentences is misleading because makes it sound like the article is citing a totally inconclusive paper. The next sentence is "The balance of evidence, however, seems inconsistent with aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 particularly in well-ventilated spaces."

gojomo 6y ago
That "particularly in well-ventilated spaces" is doing a lot of work. In normal times, people spend a lot of time with other people in not-very-well-ventilated spaces - including, unfortunately, many conference-rooms, classrooms, small shops, bars/nightclubs, etc. So in all those actual places, Covid-19 is aerosol-transmissible. Also, in just the few weeks since that JAMA discussion, more actual examples of Covid-19 almost certainly transmitted by aerosols have been compiled; see for instance study/stories linked at: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640 https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1293276767042416640
IncRnd 6y ago
I didn't use the word "conclusion". The article does conclude with the sentence I quoted as well as what you quoted. If you honestly read what I wrote, you would see that what I wrote is in the linked page, as is what you wrote, and the sentence from each of our posts is orthogonal to the support that was being sought for the article. I was not restating the conclusion, but showing how the original article was quoting support from a place that did not support what was being said.

prox 6y ago

That is a weird wording on the last sentence, because the virus doesn’t transmit by magic. All epidemiologists I’ve read sofar seem to speak of mostly droplet transmission with some role for aerosols, which is indeed still studied afaik.

autokad 6y ago
there is a growing number of those that believe the virus also transmits airborne. droplet != airborne.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Any good links for that? I haven’t seen anything beyond speculation that suggests that, and the patterns of infection in places I’m aware of aren’t consistent with airborne.
  - gojomo 6y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aerosols-indoors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aeroso...
- prox 6y ago
  Aerosols are basically floating particles with virus, which is not airborne, but still carries the virus a lot further.
IncRnd 6y ago
I agree. That is why the article for this post is so odd. It links to many pages that do not support what is being stated. It's almost as if they chose 100 random places to link, possibly from only looking at the first hits on google searches.