3 ms·

> Flu viruses are typically transferred through respiratory droplets, not skin contact or injection. A bewilderingly ambiguous sentence. Is the rarity of infec

> Flu viruses are typically transferred through respiratory droplets, not skin contact or injection. A bewilderingly ambiguous sentence. Is the rarity of infection via injection adjusted for the rarity of getting stabbed with an injection of flu virus? I can think of a number of times I’ve been sneezed on but I’m challenged to recall the last time flu virus was injected into my body.

nvm0n2 3y ago
Yes it's not really ambiguous it's just completely illogical. Of course they're not usually transferred via injection, it does not in any way follow that injecting yourself with influenza therefore has a low risk of infection. At least it seems this claim is one made up by the journalists and not actual scientists. Also, they don't really know how flu viruses are transferred. The epidemiology of respiratory viruses is poorly understood and the whole aerosol vs droplet debate rages for flu just as much as for SARS-CoV-2. People touching their faces was meant to be a major pathway for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 so skin contact would seem to be likely to transmit the moment if you accidentally rub your eyes or something before realizing. And even later in the artice, it quotes an official saying: “An individual’s permanent residence is not appropriate due to the fact that many residences are in buildings with high occupancy that share air exchange and other infrastructure,” i.e. aerosol transmission is assumed. It's good though, that The Intercept is/was doing this sort of investigation. The ultra-lax approach used by these virus labs is highly relevant information, and puts claims that COVID couldn't have come from a lab in important context. For this, we can forgive the author for an illogical statement here and there. It's clear from this sort of investigation and others that regardless of whether COVID did or did not come from a lab, the things these labs do combined with the near non-existent oversight is practically a guarantee of man-made pandemics.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

nvm0n2 3y ago

Yes it's not really ambiguous it's just completely illogical. Of course they're not usually transferred via injection, it does not in any way follow that injecting yourself with influenza therefore has a low risk of infection. At least it seems this claim is one made up by the journalists and not actual scientists. Also, they don't really know how flu viruses are transferred. The epidemiology of respiratory viruses is poorly understood and the whole aerosol vs droplet debate rages for flu just as much as for SARS-CoV-2. People touching their faces was meant to be a major pathway for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 so skin contact would seem to be likely to transmit the moment if you accidentally rub your eyes or something before realizing. And even later in the artice, it quotes an official saying: “An individual’s permanent residence is not appropriate due to the fact that many residences are in buildings with high occupancy that share air exchange and other infrastructure,” i.e. aerosol transmission is assumed. It's good though, that The Intercept is/was doing this sort of investigation. The ultra-lax approach used by these virus labs is highly relevant information, and puts claims that COVID couldn't have come from a lab in important context. For this, we can forgive the author for an illogical statement here and there. It's clear from this sort of investigation and others that regardless of whether COVID did or did not come from a lab, the things these labs do combined with the near non-existent oversight is practically a guarantee of man-made pandemics.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]