4 ms·

> Please explain on what basis you are assigning a paper "expert consensus" ? The source is for the "if not majority" part of that sentence. The other part is

> Please explain on what basis you are assigning a paper "expert consensus" ? The source is for the "if not majority" part of that sentence. The other part is just me making an admittedly unsubstantiated claim. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-one-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o... > I know somehow on HN linking to a paper is seen as a mic-drop, but that is not the case in the real world. Sure, but this is HN. You often have to source stuff just to not get downvoted.

lbeltrame 6y ago
FTR, the letter linked in the NY Times article actually advocates the precautionary principle (which implies there isn't enough evidence, only suggestions of such).
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Not enough evidence for what? Quote: "The evidence is admittedly incomplete for all the steps in COVID-19 microdroplet transmission, but it is similarly incomplete for the large droplet and fomite modes of transmission. The airborne transmission mechanism operates in parallel with the large droplet and fomite routes [16] that are now the basis of guidance." By using arbitrarily high standards for evidence, I might as well claim there's no evidence that COVID is transmitted by large droplets or by smear infection. Where's the randomized trial that proves beyond any doubt that coughing in each other's faces will spread COVID?
  - beagle3 6y ago
    I have not bookmarked them, but I found in the past very convincing evidence for significant fecal-oral transmission -- possibly of comparable standard to airborne and droplet transmission. I'm kind of surprised that there isn't much of a discussion about that, because if it is indeed a significant route (say 30%), all the masks and distancing in the world won't help until this is also addressed.

lbeltrame 6y ago

FTR, the letter linked in the NY Times article actually advocates the precautionary principle (which implies there isn't enough evidence, only suggestions of such).

gridlockd 6y ago
Not enough evidence for what? Quote: "The evidence is admittedly incomplete for all the steps in COVID-19 microdroplet transmission, but it is similarly incomplete for the large droplet and fomite modes of transmission. The airborne transmission mechanism operates in parallel with the large droplet and fomite routes [16] that are now the basis of guidance." By using arbitrarily high standards for evidence, I might as well claim there's no evidence that COVID is transmitted by large droplets or by smear infection. Where's the randomized trial that proves beyond any doubt that coughing in each other's faces will spread COVID?
- beagle3 6y ago
  I have not bookmarked them, but I found in the past very convincing evidence for significant fecal-oral transmission -- possibly of comparable standard to airborne and droplet transmission. I'm kind of surprised that there isn't much of a discussion about that, because if it is indeed a significant route (say 30%), all the masks and distancing in the world won't help until this is also addressed.