4 ms·

>The other thing that would make it easier would be if we actually started acting in the knowledge that it is airborne If you have a sincerely held belief that

>The other thing that would make it easier would be if we actually started acting in the knowledge that it is airborne If you have a sincerely held belief that is controversial, then it's helpful to provide information about why you hold the belief and how you came to reject some other consensus.

graeme 5y ago
The CDC page is pretty clear about aerosol transmission methods. And that’s only updated as of May 7th: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... The widely documented superspreader events are impossible to explain by droplet or fomite transmission. Literally impossible. You think an infected bar patron goes around within 6 feet of 80 other people and shakes their hands or breathes on them? 224 people were infected at this Quebec city gym. Aerosol is the only viable mechanism to do that: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/superspreading-event-canada-megagym-quebec-1.5985744 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/superspreading-event-canada-m... Here’s a couple articles summing things up: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/why-arent-we-talking-more-about-airborne-transmission/614737/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/why-arent... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airborne-transmission.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airbo...
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Sorry for the misunderstanding, the possibly controversial beliefs I was referring to were such as - "we" haven't been acting as if it was airborne, that there is a sharp distinction between droplets and airborne particles, and that the precautions that are appropriate are as you listed and the others are mostly useless. Airborne particles are indeed in the CDC FAQ; I don't know how far back that goes. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html
  - graeme 5y ago
    Cdc added them may 2021 or so. The WHO still denies airborne spread. Plenty of jurisdictions still vigorously fight against recognizing aerosol spread as it would involve more work to fight. For example Ontario: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/08/26/ontario-fought-against-treating-covid-19-as-an-airborne-threat-in-hospitals-and-won-with-the-fourth-wave-bearing-down-was-that-the-right-move.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/08/26/ontario-fought-a... And yes, if you have a virus that cam infect 245 people in the gym through the air, then ventilation is more important than handwashing. I’m not sure anyone has even established evidence for fomite spread! I expect it is a mechanism too but the point is it has been treated as default for some reason despite lack of evidence and evidence for other methods.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >Cdc added them may 2021 or so The Delta variant took over in the US around the beginning of July. Doesn't the type of spread you are harping on mainly pertain to Delta? If so, then the CDC was anticipating it a month or more in advance; that doesn't seem like a belated response.

graeme 5y ago

The CDC page is pretty clear about aerosol transmission methods. And that’s only updated as of May 7th: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... The widely documented superspreader events are impossible to explain by droplet or fomite transmission. Literally impossible. You think an infected bar patron goes around within 6 feet of 80 other people and shakes their hands or breathes on them? 224 people were infected at this Quebec city gym. Aerosol is the only viable mechanism to do that: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/superspreading-event-canada-megagym-quebec-1.5985744 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/superspreading-event-canada-m... Here’s a couple articles summing things up: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/why-arent-we-talking-more-about-airborne-transmission/614737/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/07/why-arent... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airborne-transmission.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airbo...

perl4ever 5y ago
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the possibly controversial beliefs I was referring to were such as - "we" haven't been acting as if it was airborne, that there is a sharp distinction between droplets and airborne particles, and that the precautions that are appropriate are as you listed and the others are mostly useless. Airborne particles are indeed in the CDC FAQ; I don't know how far back that goes. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html
- graeme 5y ago
  Cdc added them may 2021 or so. The WHO still denies airborne spread. Plenty of jurisdictions still vigorously fight against recognizing aerosol spread as it would involve more work to fight. For example Ontario: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/08/26/ontario-fought-against-treating-covid-19-as-an-airborne-threat-in-hospitals-and-won-with-the-fourth-wave-bearing-down-was-that-the-right-move.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/08/26/ontario-fought-a... And yes, if you have a virus that cam infect 245 people in the gym through the air, then ventilation is more important than handwashing. I’m not sure anyone has even established evidence for fomite spread! I expect it is a mechanism too but the point is it has been treated as default for some reason despite lack of evidence and evidence for other methods.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    >Cdc added them may 2021 or so The Delta variant took over in the US around the beginning of July. Doesn't the type of spread you are harping on mainly pertain to Delta? If so, then the CDC was anticipating it a month or more in advance; that doesn't seem like a belated response.