https://ift.tt/2NfKG1i<br>
<p>Wiliiam Firth Wells, with his research from the thirties, would
have provided the basis for the approach to social distancing<a
href="https://qz.com/1831100/where-does-the-six-feet-social-distancing-guideline-come-from/">,
to keep the distance of more than 3 feet.</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/06/18/game-set-het-zijn-de-aerosols/wells-in-quarts/"
rel="attachment wp-att-7259"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-7259"
src="https://www.maurice.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Wells-in-quarts.jpg"
alt="" width="740" height="413" /></a></p>
<p>I was curious and tried to find his 1955 masterpiece.
“Airborne contagion and Air Hygiene” with a description of
all his scientific work</p>
<p>It took a lot of effort to find that 1955 book, but now I have it
and it’s more than worth it.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/06/18/game-set-het-zijn-de-aerosols/wells/"
rel="attachment wp-att-7252"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-7252
size-medium" src="https://www.maurice.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Wells-225x300.jpg"
alt="" width="225" height="300" /></a></p>
<p>It’s about the work Wells has done since 1930 on the
contagiousness of all kinds of diseases, with reports of many
experiments. It’s a kind of handbook, and rightly so. It’s
amazing what that man has done in those 25 years. If he’d still
been alive, the world would have been a much better place and hundreds
of thousands less people would have died.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>When I looked in Wells’ book for that “empirical rule
of thumb” of keeping your distance, I was astonished. It was
just research into how far larger droplets spread when they come out
of a person’s mouth or nose. And yes, most of them end up on the
ground within 3 feet. But in no way was it determined whether someone
was infected when they got those drops from a short distance.</p>
<p>It was something like measuring how far the best golfer can hit the
ball. That’s over 400 meters. But that doesn’t mean the
ball will end up in the hole. You have to determine that separately.
And Wells didn’t do that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But that wasn’t the reason for my astonishment. From the
title of the book it is clear what the subject of this 400-page
collection is “Airborne contagion and Air Hygiene”. This
is also explicitly stated in the subject description (page 319):</p>
<p style="padding-left:40px;"><em>“Droplet infections are
primarily airborne; airborne epidemics are absent from an ecological
population provided with adequate air hygiene”.</em></p>
<p>And the whole book is about that. With regard to a whole series of
diseases, which pass through infections. Especially through
bacteria/parasites, but also through viruses. A large number of
experiments are reported on. How the infection then goes and what
measures can be taken in the indoor climate to prevent it. Really
impressive.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But I fell off my chair when it came to the animal experiments with
the tuberculosis bacterium and the influenza vaccine. In both trials
there were results that Wells himself says: “truly
astonishing” (page 119). There was a big difference between the
animals that were “offered” the big drops and the animals
that were “offered” the micro drops.</p>
<p>The difference was a factor of 16 times. 32 of the 33 animals that
inhaled the aerosols got a lung infection. None of the animals that
were offered the large drops showed a form of swallowed infection
after 6 weeks.</p>
<p><strong>In short: larger drops do not cause an infection with
tuberculosis, but it happens entirely through airborne microdroplets,
which are inhaled by the animal (man) for a while and then
“nestle” in the lungs.</strong></p>
<p>But yes, one will object, tuberculosis is a bacterium.</p>
<p>But then on page 119 we see the following about experiments with
mice: <strong>“Influenza virus inhaled in large and small drops
DUPLICATED the effect observed in experiments with
tuberculosis”</strong>. Mice that inhaled the aerosols died
quickly. While the mice that had come into contact with the large
droplets were much better off.</p>
<p>It then goes on to say that the influenza virus inhaled in
microdroplets was much more contagious than if those drops had been
removed from the air and inserted into the nose.</p>
<p>The rest of the chapter describes other tests with other infectious
diseases, such as group C Streptococci. And the results are always the
same.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The small particles can penetrate directly into the lungs and
there, if they are in sufficient numbers, very much household. Larger
particles/droplets do not succeed or to a much lesser extent, Wells
states. They are retained in the upper respiratory tract and do not
lead to contamination, or only to a much lesser extent.</p>
<p>It is astonishing that the much vaunted handbook of 1955 already
explains very explicitly that the aerosols are a major danger in
almost all diseases that have been studied. They go directly to the
lungs and do their destructive work.</p>
<p>The large drops (cannonballs or not), if they hit you at all, enter
the upper respiratory tract and are very difficult to reach the
lungs.</p>
<p>But WHO, and therefore all CDC’s in the world, don’t
adhere to what Wells has been experimenting with since 1955. The
danger does not come from the larger drops. We have to protect
ourselves from breathing in the aerosols too long. And we can abolish
social distancing, keep 2 meters, 1.5 meters or 1 meter worldwide.</p>
<p>Fresh air and higher humidity are the protection against the
aerosols staying in enclosed spaces for a long time. Outside, the
aerosols don’t get stuck around you and you are completely
safe.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Do you understand why there were such large outbreaks in
slaughterhouses all over the world (little ventilation and low
temperatures, the ideal circumstance for the virus to float)? But do
you now also understand why WHO and the CDC’s don’t
mention it as such, because if they acknowledged it, their whole
position about social distancing would be undermined.</p>
<p>And what happened in Beijing lately also confirms that pattern. (In
a wholesale center near the meat and fish department, where it is also
much cooler than elsewhere).</p>
<p>Outbreaks in hot areas also seem to be related <a
href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/06/18/the-risks-of-air-conditioning/">to
the use of air conditioners</a></p>
<p>As long as WHO and CDCs do not maximise their efforts to prevent
the floating viruses, but do want to keep the one and a half meter of
society afloat, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide will die
needlessly (if not more) and the economy and society will be held in a
stranglehold of having to keep their distance.</p>
<p>I hope that politicians and media and citizens now realise that
RIVM, OMT and the usual suspects in the media, are wrong and have led
to the wrong policy with enormous social consequences. On the basis of
this information from Wells and what <a
href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/06/05/the-big-impact-of-superspreading-events/">we
now know about superspread events</a>, it is easy to implement a
simple policy in which the risks of infection can also be kept well
under control in the autumn and the economic and social consequences
can be greatly reduced.</p>
<p>Het bericht <a rel="nofollow"
href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/06/22/wells-proved-it-already-its-the-airborne-microdroplets/">Wells
proved it already; it’s the airborne microdroplets</a> verscheen
eerst op <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.maurice.nl">Maurice de
Hond</a>.</p>
<br>
<br>
Maurice de Hond<br>
https://ift.tt/2NfKG1i<br>
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten