[From a chat. Someone asked what the origin for most infection comes from close contact]

From the epi reports where you ask the person what they did for a week, etc, and then find that they were close to a positive at some point, so the conclusion is "aha, close contact"

You're never going to know if its because of the 2m with that person, or being in some small room with someone else, because nobody is looking for air spread. Conclusion is that it's the close contact.
Why? because EPI STUDIES ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR DROPLET

Every question, etc, asked, is from the point of view that nothing except certain specific viruses (measles, etc.) are airborne.

Because remember, to them, if air, R0 would = a billion.
https://t.co/cjJvGVY4Vr
That's why if you read the CDC reports, it's rare for them to analyse beyond 2m. Usually its asian studies that do. And even then barely (the South Korean one, even still, used droplet language).

SK study:

https://t.co/QblvVRvIda
This is why only 2 rows on planes are contact traced. A few studies trace outside, and find contacts outside 2 rows, but most don't.

I've posted about articles saying 2 row not good enough

https://t.co/u6mo07FEVy
That short article (a terrible one, btw) cited TWO references that said 2 rows may not work.

https://t.co/bcdFAObflu
On top of that, there are others I haven't ever had time to post.

Hertzberg 2016. Says two 2 rows misses cases. See conclusion at bottom.
Mangili 2015, again noting hits found 7 rows distant.

This is just whatever snippet I quickly found.
Goldblatt 2013.

Just whatever snippet I quickly found.

I haven't even researched this issue. These are just the studies I had lying around.

I can't turn around without bumping into info that refutes droplets. It's insane.
And consider that US prison report (in CDC journal) that found transmission limit should be 15 minutes in 24 hours.

They suggested that rule (on the basis of ONE person, by the way), BEFORE considering air spread.

That's also insane.
These rules do not work because it ain't about the droplets.

https://t.co/qRt8bJLV0f

More from Society

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.