PeterHolland765: The aerosoldeniers

https://ift.tt/2WTGJ7R 
We’ve added a new category of “deniers”: the
aerosol deniers. Scientists, who will tell you “we are purely
scientific”, but in reality act on the basis of power. They are
reluctant to open themselves up to facts. And in this corona crisis
they are responsible for a lot of unnecessary damage.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of these people. They form a block
of power within the WHO and also in the Netherlands they control the
RIVM (Dutch CDC). Van Dissel (director of RIVM) is their
mouthpiece.
From the beginning of this year the WHO (and RIVM) have stated that
Covid-19 is distributed through direct contact. So larger drops that
can hit you if you are too close to a contagious person, or when you
touch surfaces where those larger drops have ended up and then rub the
virus in your eyes.
The role of aerosols was only mentioned as a result of certain
medical procedures, <a
href="https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as mentioned on the 29th of
March on the WHO website.</a>
As a non-virologist, who is mainly concerned with data analyses of
the spread of the virus, I did not doubt this until mid-March. Such
important bodies and people who have been working with viruses and
epidemics for years would certainly know everything about viral
spread.
But the patterns I saw in the spread of the virus (which at that
time was limited to between 30 and 50 degrees N under certain weather
conditions) could not be explained if the spread would only go through
direct contact.
<a href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/03/30/the-influence-of-humidity-on-the-spread-of-the-covid-19-virus/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">On the 27th of March I described my
search</a> and also that an explanation could be found in droplets
that could float much longer, as I had found in the literature.
Due to new information (especially the events at a choir in Seattle
where more than 80% of those present were infected about which the LA
Times wrote at the end of March) and information from Japan and South
Korea,<a href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/04/02/yes-we-know-what-increases-the-spreading-speed-micro-drops/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener"> I came to the conclusion on April
2nd</a> that aerosols played an important role in the spread of the
virus. After that, I got more and more confirmations and I met more
and more scientists, who had drawn the same conclusions.
Many of the developments surrounding the spread of Covid-19 were
much better explained by the spread via aerosols, rather than by
direct contact. The many outbreaks in slaughterhouses worldwide were
also covered, <a
href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/05/01/meat-processing-industry-superspreading-hot-spots/"
target="_blank" rel="noopener">as I described on May 1st</a>. Those
were real Corona hotspots. Cold conditions and poor ventilation were
optimal conditions for the virus to hover in the air for a long
time.
But when I heard Van Dissel on the subject of aerosols during the
sessions in the Parliament, or read the OMT advice of May 25th, the
importance of this was completely denied. And with some minor
adjustments that is still the case. “it may happen, but its
importance is small”.
Using a number of angles, I will show how bewildered I am by the
stubbornness of those views. That I can’t understand that they
haven’t changed their views in the meantime. How their arguments
actually defy any logic. And last but not least: what enormously
damaging consequences that had and has.
<h4></h4>
<ol>
<li>
<h4>Aerosols have long been known</h4>
</li>
</ol>
It is not that aerosols are completely unknown to virologists and
epidemiologists. In the case of the measles virus, this is the
generally recognized route of infection. With the SARS outbreak in
2003 this is also described as a route of infection. (<a
href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032867">1</a>,<a
href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa032867#article_letters">2</a>)
There are many studies on influenza, where it is described that
aerosols play an important role. <a
href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21352792/" target="_blank"
rel="noopener noreferrer">One of these studies</a> was even conducted
by RIVM staff itself in 2010.
The big question then is: How
can we be so sure that aerosols do not play a role in Covid-19 if it
is recognized as a route of infection for other respiratory
virusses?
Where does this certainty come from, and how is it that for months
virtually no virologist or epidemiologist in the world has raised the
subject “Covid-19 is also spread via aerosols” as a
possibility?
I have found no scientific basis for that. Neither for the
certainty of the droplet infection as the only way (nor, for that
matter, for keeping the 1.5 meter distance).
 
<ol start="2">
<li>
<h4>The dogma of WHO/RIVM</h4>
</li>
</ol>
I always thought scientists were free to discuss findings,
conclusions and alternative theories. That is what takes you
further.
But with regard to the spread of Covid-19, I have unfortunately had
to conclude that precisely the opposite is the case. In public almost
all virologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists conform
unconditionally to the views of WHO and RIVM. Even when I heard much
more nuanced points of view through one-on-one contacts, to the
outside world I didn’t hear that (unfortunately not from the
people concerned either). It’s like some kind of omerta. And the
sad thing is that journalists couldn’t or wouldn’t break
through that. So they acted (often unintentionally) as slip carriers
of power.
If people paid any attention to me or my findings at all, it was
always accompanied by a comment from one of those experts, whose names
are now more familiar than those of most football players, who pushed
that away with one of the WHO/RIVM standpoints. But many media did not
even report my findings, because they deviated from the WHO/RIVM
standpoint and/or I was dismissed as an amateur or worse.
 
<ol start="3">
<li>
<h4>Denying the aerosols at superspread events</h4>
</li>
</ol>
If you dogmatically hold on to a point of view, of which the
foundation has in fact already been completely destroyed, then you
have to at least make 5 somersaults backwards to explain observations
that do not fit in. It only doesn’t matter that you defy any
logic in doing so, if your audience does not raise questions.
I’ve described many of them over the past few months,
I’ll recap some of them:
<ul>
<li>About the contamination of large numbers of choir members at
rehearsals: “yes, but they were still in the coffee corner
together”.</li>
<li>About the many large-scale outbreaks at slaughterhouses worldwide:
“that is because of the poor living conditions of the (foreign)
workers”.</li>
<li>And while the infection rates of partners of patients at home
worldwide were only between 20 and 30%, one always found an
explanation for infections on occasions (such as in bars, at parties,
churches, funerals) where more than half of them were infected within
a few hours, “they hadn’t kept the 1.5 meter distance
after all”.</li>
</ul>
In the same category is their desire to cling on to the "fact" that
people outside also run a considerable risk of being infected.
(Because if that wouldn’t be the case, that would make the
chance of being infected by aerosols very likely). The OMT (and prime
minister Rutte) do not hesitate to claim with great certainty that in
the stadium of Milan during the match Atalanta Bergamo- Valencia a lot
of people are infected. While the chances of this happening inside the
stadium are extremely small.
If you read <a
href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6919e6.htm"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this report about the
outbreak at the choir near Seattle</a> and <a
href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3654517"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this report about the
outbreak at the meat processing industry near Gutersloh</a> and you
still claim that aerosols play no role, then you don’t deserve
to be taken seriously by anyone anymore.
 
<ol start="4">
<li>
<h4>Proving the impossibility of aerosols by comparing Covid-19 to measles</h4>
</li>
</ol>
The reversed evidence we often hear, is that the reproduction
factor of Covid-19 of 2.5 is much smaller than that of measles, of
which it is certain that it spreads aerogenic, so that that cannot be
the case with Covid-19, is also such a weak argument.
Two important pieces of evidence against this position:
<ul>
<li>Covid-19 spreads in a way that has been described as: 10% infects
the next 80%, 20% infects another 20% and 70% infects nobody. At a
reproduction factor of 2.5 for Covid-19 this means that the first 10%
infect 20 others on average. This has been explained extensively here.
So if apparently the first 10% can infect 20 others on average per
person, it can’t be done other than by air. Because that can be
deduced directly from the statement that measles with a reproduction
factor of 12 to 20 is apparently the measure for being infected by
air.</li>
<li>But a second argument has recently been put to me by visitors of
my site. Suppose you have to breathe in 1,000 units of measles virus
to really get sick and 20,000 units of Covid-19, then that alone can
result in a much lower reproduction factor. In short: the argument of
the lower reproduction factor of Covid-19, which argues against the
floating behavior of the virus, is not valid.</li>
</ul>
 
<ol start="5">
<li>
<h4>There would be no evidence that the micro drops actually contain
Covid-19 virus with which you are infected.</h4>
</li>
</ol>
This is also an argument that you hear at times. Prof. Voss uses it
all the time.
Meanwhile, there is t<a
href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.13.20041632v1.full.pdf"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">his research which does
contain proof that the virus is in aerosols.</a>
And here you see a tweet from an important American virologist about it.
<a href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/07/25/de-aerosolen-ontkenners/feng-denkg/"
rel="attachment wp-att-7882"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-7882"
src="https://www.maurice.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Feng-denkg.jpg"
alt="" width="285" height="637" /></a>
But even this evidence will be brushed aside with a series of fallacies.
I was told by an American specialist that until now there had never
been conclusive proof that there were virus particles in the aerosols
of measles that could be contagious either.
And that’s where the key is, by the way. A lot of evidence
for every point of view is circumstantial. Precisely because so many
people are infected with measles, it can only have gone through the
air. And there must be virus particles in the aerosols that can infect
people. That completes the evidence.
So, if people accept this for measles, why don’t they do it
for Covid-19?
 
 
If you don’t find this a good substantiation for the term
“aerosol deniers” then I recall what <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-one-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">was wirtten in the New York
Times in the context of the letter of the 239 scientists to the
WHO.</a>
The Commission on Infection
Prevention and Control…, according to the experts, is bound by a
rigid and overly-medicalized view of scientific evidence, is slow and
risk-averse in updating its guidance, and allows a few conservative
voices to shout out dissenting opinions.
“They’d rather die than
change their minds”, said a WHO advisor who didn’t want to
be identified because of her ongoing work for the organisation.
Now, none of this is about a – in itself interesting –
scientific discussion on an interesting subject. But it is about a
subject with gigantic consequences for the whole world. Not only in
terms of public health, but also economically, socially, etc.
The bad thing is, that if these deniers do recognize that aerosols
can play a role, then of course they will say that it only plays a
small role. Because only in that way they can radiate that the
original point of view actually was right after all.
But the aerosols play a large, even crucial role in the spread of
Covid-19. I have already explained it many times, for example here. In
super spread events, almost all contamination takes place via
aerosols. And the superspread events are the drivers of the
exponential growth of the virus (10% of the people infect 80% of the
others, so 1 person in that group infects on average 20).
The fact that the aerosol deniers continue to put the brakes on and
reject it with false arguments and fallacies, whatever evidence
emerges, means that the number of victims is still increasing in many
parts of the world. And if they persist with this behavior in the
Netherlands, we will start to reap the bitter rewards in the autumn as
well. Either due to a sharp increase in the number of infections
and/or due to measures that further squeeze the economy and
society.
 
The worst thing is how RIVM/CDC and other experts abuse the word
“scientific”. Do you really think that the discussions
within the RIVM are settled on the basis of scientific arguments, if
you read this above?
Both on this subject and on face masks, I also know from reliable
sources, that there are great contradictions among the members of the
Scientific Crisis Board. What comes out of it will be at best a kind
of compromise, ensuring that the original position can be
maintained.
And this is the way, they will continue to deal with aerosols. At
best they will recognize that they play a role in very specific
situations, but for the rest we will be infected by direct droplets
and we will have to adhere to the regulations concerning the 1.5
meters and personal hygiene. But realize that these instructions come
from a group of dogmatics who hide behind the term
“scientists”. And our government keeps copying these
arguments, unfortunately, without apparently realizing how shaky the
basis is.
Het bericht <a rel="nofollow"
href="https://www.maurice.nl/2020/07/25/de-aerosolen-ontkenners/">The
aerosoldeniers</a> verscheen eerst op <a rel="nofollow"
href="https://www.maurice.nl">Maurice de Hond</a>.
 
 
Maurice de Hond 
https://ift.tt/2WTGJ7R

PeterHolland765

zaterdag 25 juli 2020

The aerosoldeniers

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten