Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Coronavirus/COVID-19
Reload this Page >

They don't want to talk about airborne transmission...

Notices
Coronavirus/COVID-19 Discussion of the novel coronavirus

They don't want to talk about airborne transmission...

Old 07-06-20, 12:56 PM
  #1  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
They don't want to talk about airborne transmission...

They don't want to talk about airborne transmission because that is going to make people afraid
Oh? Is that somehow worse than having the largest death-toll on the planet?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/healt...ter/index.html
wgscott is offline  
Old 07-06-20, 06:22 PM
  #2  
jon c. 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 3,905
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1066 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 153 Times in 97 Posts
It is understandable that he and his associates would like their field of study to get more attention. But he doesn't really support for his assertion that there is global conspiracy to ignore this research so that the general public won't be scared. "They" seems to include any number of unspecified agencies around the world and frankly I think it doubtful they are in cahoots about this.

Those in the audience who have been paying attention have already seen the information he suggests is being repressed. Nothing in that story caused this layperson to think "I had no idea that was possible." And his suggestions are certainly not news to those who actually control ventilation systems. Economics may act against implementation, but physical plant professionals and those who control their budgets are all talking about these options.

I think most agencies across the globe focus their message on the simple and practical measures everyone can take. And that includes staying out of crowds, which substantially addresses Milton's primary concern. Person to person aerosol transmission is the most common method. He studies a secondary transmission method which is certainly worthy of significant investigation. But not necessarily worthy of significant press at this point in time. He can't tell me anything about rates of transmission (afaik based on the story) or provide me with information I can use (outside of avoiding crowds, which I do). He can only tell me about paths the virus may travel given certain conditions. It is true that discussion of his research would induce additional fear among some, but I think the primary reason it doesn't get the press he would like is that it's just too esoteric to be fodder for the largest audience.
jon c. is offline  
Likes For jon c.:
Old 07-06-20, 06:24 PM
  #3  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
It is referring to the CDC (and WHO), and a petition/letter with 239 scientists as signatories requesting this be considered.

Here is the link to the letter:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article...searchresult=1
wgscott is offline  
Likes For wgscott:
Old 07-06-20, 06:47 PM
  #4  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,341

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 118 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4726 Post(s)
Liked 1,397 Times in 812 Posts
I know that is something akin to a "scientific open letter," but no amount of endorsements will save it from being trash. No respectable document includes the frequent use of might, may, or "every reason to expect." Do the work.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 07-06-20, 06:53 PM
  #5  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
I know that is something akin to a "scientific open letter," but no amount of endorsements will save it from being trash. No respectable document includes the frequent use of might, may, or "every reason to expect." Do the work.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Be sure to write to the editors of the journal and tell them how they really ought to review such submissions. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear from you.
wgscott is offline  
Old 07-06-20, 07:12 PM
  #6  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,341

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 118 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4726 Post(s)
Liked 1,397 Times in 812 Posts
I couldn't be bothered to give a damn what those editors think (not that I think that there are any.) I've probably edited... 2,000 academic papers in my time, including technical documents. This one fails. Ignoring the litany of errors in formatting and presentation, the References section is at least mostly correct. Props for that... I guess?
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Likes For DrIsotope:
Old 07-06-20, 08:08 PM
  #7  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
As we both know, I am referring to the peer review process.

Did you happen to pick up on the fact that the signatories actually did do the work you are claiming hasn't been done? These aren't random people signing a petition.
wgscott is offline  
Old 07-06-20, 08:16 PM
  #8  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,341

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 118 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4726 Post(s)
Liked 1,397 Times in 812 Posts
I never said work hadn't been done, I was simply remarking that the "paper" you're so vehemently defending is garbage, and if this is the sort of thing the authors hope will get people to acknowledge the possibility of airborne spread (about which I've read much, much better works) then they might as well try to ice skate uphill while they're at it.

Airborne transmission would handily explain why so many Americans are managing to get it so fast, at least. That and the not wearing masks, not social distancing, and probably no longer washing their hands. There could be a sparkly beam firing COVID down from space, and some people would go closer to look at it.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Likes For DrIsotope:
Old 07-06-20, 08:26 PM
  #9  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
I'm only defending it because you are denouncing it without any basis in fact.
wgscott is offline  
Old 07-06-20, 08:31 PM
  #10  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,341

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 118 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4726 Post(s)
Liked 1,397 Times in 812 Posts
Bro... please. Pick a better fight. A fight that's worth winning. The abstract for this piece would be, "Viruses might maybe and can be spread through the air, and COVID-19 is a virus, so open a window." They literally have a hasty graphic of the importance of open windows.

I mean... really?

__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 07-06-20, 08:53 PM
  #11  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
It's a stupid graphic. Sue me. I've written News and Views for Nature and Perspectives for Science, and they put in dumbed-down graphics. It's a fact of life (and those are the world's best scientific journals, with elaborate art/graphics departments).

The problem is the WHO and CDC have been remarkably recalcitrant to acknowledge many aspects of this disease.

How long did it take the CDC to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 infections could propagate via community spread? What was the purpose for being so slow to acknowledge the obvious? How many lives might have been saved if the CDC and WHO took this more seriously in February?

Why are they so reluctant to acknowledge airborne transmission? How many more people will have to die so that we can maintain the fiction that it is safe to go to a movie theater or indoor campaign rally?

Last edited by wgscott; 07-06-20 at 08:58 PM.
wgscott is offline  
Old 07-07-20, 05:35 PM
  #12  
skookum
cyclotourist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: calgary, canada
Posts: 1,164
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 70 Posts
Some comment on the airborne transmission dispute. Much of it appears to be about terminology.

As we’ve outlined here and here, a major problem plaguing this discussion is the false dichotomy between “droplet” and “airborne” transmission that we use in healthcare settings (for simplicity of messaging, and because it has served us well for several decades—for reasons I’ll get back to later). This dichotomy divides application of transmission-based precautions between those pathogens spread via respiratory droplets, all of which must absolutely fall to the ground within 6 feet of the source, and those pathogens which become airborne, meaning they travel long distances on air currents, remain in the air for very long periods of time, and most importantly, can cause infection after their airborne sojourns if they find the right mucosal surface.

But we know (and WHO experts know) that there is no such dichotomy—it’s more of a continuum. At the very least there is a middle category, let’s call it Small Particle Aerosol Transmission (or SPAT). Many respiratory viruses (not just SARS-CoV-2) can remain suspended in aerosols and travel distances > 6 feet. As Jorge outlined, it’s probable that transmission events occur when these aerosols are concentrated in closed, poorly ventilated spaces or in very large amounts (e.g. a 2+ hour choir practice, a 3 hour indoor birthday party, a crowded bar). This may explain the superspreading events that drive a lot of SARS-CoV-2 transmission
It’s important to distinguish SPAT from “classic airborne transmission” (let’s call it CAT). The CAT pathogens (TB, measles, VZV) have very different transmission dynamics than SPAT pathogens, as I outlined here (R0s of >10, household transmission rates of 50-90%). The distinction is important because for most healthcare epidemiologists, using the term “airborne” implies a common set of “one-size fits all” interventions to prevent transmission, interventions that require resource-intensive engineering controls and PPE requirements. It is not at all clear that such interventions are required to prevent transmission of SPAT pathogens. In fact, most evidence (and real world experience) suggests that they are not. This is why the droplet-airborne dichotomy has served us fairly well over the years—either because droplet precautions appear to be pretty effective at preventing SPAT, or because SPAT is rare even among those viruses capable of it.
.

https://haicontroversies.blogspot.co...some-spat.html
skookum is offline  
Old 07-07-20, 05:42 PM
  #13  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
SPAT is a remarkable acronym.
wgscott is offline  
Likes For wgscott:
Old 07-08-20, 02:50 PM
  #14  
berner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,166

Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 579 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 230 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott View Post
It's a stupid graphic. Sue me. I've written News and Views for Nature and Perspectives for Science, and they put in dumbed-down graphics. It's a fact of life (and those are the world's best scientific journals, with elaborate art/graphics departments).

The problem is the WHO and CDC have been remarkably recalcitrant to acknowledge many aspects of this disease.

How long did it take the CDC to acknowledge that SARS-CoV-2 infections could propagate via community spread? What was the purpose for being so slow to acknowledge the obvious? How many lives might have been saved if the CDC and WHO took this more seriously in February?

Why are they so reluctant to acknowledge airborne transmission? How many more people will have to die so that we can maintain the fiction that it is safe to go to a movie theater or indoor campaign rally?
The NY times had a detailed article about the WHO and CDC, a Sunday edition as I remember, with names and dates as to what was known and when was it known. Had early signs been recognized, thousands of lives would have been saved. That level of incompetence appears like a deliberate act of sabotage. However, there is so much incompetence in the world today I really should not have been surprised. There was a quote from the Surgeon General early on "stop buying face masks". Why would anyone listen to this guy ever again for any reason.
berner is offline  
Old 07-08-20, 03:24 PM
  #15  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
Unfortunately, there is a strong likelihood in the US that the anti-facemask advice was a product of law enforcement agency paranoia, the brilliant idea being people would be more likely to go out and rob a bank or the 7-11 if they already had masks on. Incompetence? Yes. Accidental? Not completely.
wgscott is offline  
Likes For wgscott:
Old 07-08-20, 11:24 PM
  #16  
Clyde1820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,129
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked 142 Times in 114 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott View Post
Unfortunately, there is a strong likelihood in the US that the anti-facemask advice was a product of law enforcement agency paranoia, the brilliant idea being people would be more likely to go out and rob a bank or the 7-11 if they already had masks on. Incompetence? Yes. Accidental? Not completely.
Could easily have been simple supply+demand realities, too. At a time when hundreds of millions of masks were being snapped up by people globally, "healthcare" was facing tight supply. Only two ways of fixing that: short term, by ceasing the drain on supply by telling people it's not so vital to have a "medical" grade mask if you're not a medical pro; and, long term, by vastly boosting production.

I'm assuming we'll know at some point.


Strange, about the apparent reticence to "come clean" with all that's known or suspected about this thing. Might just be that it's "novel" this year, and that this particular virus is a tricky little sucker. It's got a variable incubation rate; it transmits very easily; it apparently survives well on certain surfaces; it causes extremely rapid and harsh respiratory impacts and inflammation; and it's mutating. First ~6mos of its existence, and they're still trying to understand how it's working and why. Next year will be a bit better, in that they'll know many of the effects better, and thus we'll all be a bit better prepared.

Lots of "rice bowls" on tap for getting broken, if folks make the wrong call here. Easy to get demonized and scapegoated, if you're the one (in "healthcare") caught spreading "lies" about the thing. Which, in all likelihood, are simply examples of uncertainty given its "novel" status.
Clyde1820 is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 04:32 PM
  #17  
berner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,166

Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 579 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 230 Posts
I've been making a bit of a study of incompetence. From reading history I remember the political masterminds voicing expecations that the coming war, WW1, would be of short duration. Harold McMillan, then Prime Minister of Great Britain holding the treaty with Hitler overhead and declaring "peace in our time" and we know how that turned out. Then we have the conduct of the Korean War followed by the conduct of the Vietnam War. More recently and on a much smaller scale, we have the idiot who at the time was head of FEMA during hurricane Katrina, spouting about how pleased he was by the FEMA response while people in New Orleans and other places were clinging to roof tops to avoid drowning. Incompetence is to be found at all levels.
berner is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 04:56 PM
  #18  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,588

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8653 Post(s)
Liked 1,001 Times in 691 Posts
Originally Posted by berner View Post
I've been making a bit of a study of incompetence. From reading history I remember the political masterminds voicing expecations that the coming war, WW1, would be of short duration. Harold McMillan, then Prime Minister of Great Britain holding the treaty with Hitler overhead and declaring "peace in our time" and we know how that turned out. Then we have the conduct of the Korean War followed by the conduct of the Vietnam War. More recently and on a much smaller scale, we have the idiot who at the time was head of FEMA during hurricane Katrina, spouting about how pleased he was by the FEMA response while people in New Orleans and other places were clinging to roof tops to avoid drowning. Incompetence is to be found at all levels.
Isn't it known as the Peter Principle when it occurs at the highest level?
genec is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 05:03 PM
  #19  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 26,588

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8653 Post(s)
Liked 1,001 Times in 691 Posts
Originally Posted by berner View Post
The NY times had a detailed article about the WHO and CDC, a Sunday edition as I remember, with names and dates as to what was known and when was it known. Had early signs been recognized, thousands of lives would have been saved. That level of incompetence appears like a deliberate act of sabotage. However, there is so much incompetence in the world today I really should not have been surprised. There was a quote from the Surgeon General early on "stop buying face masks". Why would anyone listen to this guy ever again for any reason.
The early call to not buy/use face masks is that so few existed for medical folks and first responders... PPE was like TP... everyone was hording. It was thought non medical people would just shelter in place and that medical facilities would just be swamped. Keep in mind that a lot of PPE was being manufactured in China.

Now we are re-opening, and studies have shown face masks are vital in areas where people congregate. Distance should also be maintained. Surfaces should still be cleaned... and areas with poor ventilation should be avoided. The virus is easy to catch, but it is also fragile... Just yesterday a study came out and said Lysol spray is effective within two minutes. Try to find it.
genec is offline  
Old 07-09-20, 10:50 PM
  #20  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
Despite it not living up the the august editorial standards of the Journal of Applied Ball Bearing Research, the WHO revised their stance in light of the letter:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...on-precautions
wgscott is offline  
Likes For wgscott:
Old 07-09-20, 11:52 PM
  #21  
79pmooney
A Roadie Forever
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,406

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Mentioned: 99 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2282 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 698 Times in 485 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott View Post
Despite it not living up the the august editorial standards of the Journal of Applied Ball Bearing Research, the WHO revised their stance in light of the letter:

https://www.who.int/news-room/commen...on-precautions
So we have to thank WHO for having lower standards than Dr. Isotope. This is a weird world.
79pmooney is offline  
Old 07-10-20, 05:53 AM
  #22  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney View Post
So we have to thank WHO for having lower standards than Dr. Isotope. This is a weird world.
They won't get fooled again.
wgscott is offline  
Old 07-10-20, 08:07 AM
  #23  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,341

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 118 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4726 Post(s)
Liked 1,397 Times in 812 Posts
Article Summary:
No evidence of airborne transmission. But maybe?
No evidence of fomite transmission. But maybe?
No evidence of transmission via non-respiratory fluids. But maybe?
No consensus on transmission from asymptomatic carriers. But maybe. Probably for sure.

Wanna know why the WHO/CDC haven't warned about possible airborne transmission? Because they have absolutely no idea.
Their case gathering numbers are so bad before figuring for error, the numbers are meaningless. The WHO should have it sussed out by the time it's too late to matter.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 07-10-20, 08:47 AM
  #24  
berner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bristol, R. I.
Posts: 4,166

Bikes: Specialized Secteur, old Peugeot

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 579 Post(s)
Liked 363 Times in 230 Posts
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Isn't it known as the Peter Principle when it occurs at the highest level?
I had forgotten the Peter Principal. Since first reading about it I have learned that sociopaths number about 4% of the population so they are wide spread. A principal characteristic of the sociopath is that they are manipulative, often with no purpose other than to push peoples buttons. The consequences of their actions are of no concern as they have no compassion. In an organization these people are toxic. Boeing, which used to be a great company, lately can't get out of its own way. There are plenty of you tube videos about this but a much more detailed account is to be found in "The Sociopath Next Door" . https://www.google.com/search?client...path+next+door
berner is offline  
Old 07-10-20, 09:00 AM
  #25  
wgscott
Occam's Rotor
Thread Starter
 
wgscott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,164
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 1,242 Times in 653 Posts
Here is an article from Ars Technica that examines the data pro/con:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020...-what-we-know/


At the crux of the debate is how, exactly, different research groups classify the throng of teeny globs that spew from our mouths and noses as we breathe, talk, sing, laugh, shout, sneeze, and cough.
wgscott is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.