Facts as Fables
The first three questions were answered incoherently and paradoxically. The presenter showed that he was not familiar with the matter. I stopped commenting after that, too hopeless.
Question: Can you get infected by eating herring?
Answer OMT member
No, that's not dangerous because you eat it so it doesn't get into your airways. So that is harmless.
Presenter
OK, so Herring is safe.
OK, so what you swallow is harmless. You also swallow drops on your mucous membranes, along with your own saliva. You don't breathe in the virus on your eyes either. So how does contamination take place?
So you can only become infected if you inhale the virus. That means the virus should be in the air. They call this 'aerosols'. However, the RIVM denies that aerosols play a major role in passing on the disease.
How does a drop that falls to the ground end up in your lungs and if that does happen, for example if you choke or something, how can it cause an outbreak?
Question: Can you get infected from beer glasses?
Answer (in short)
No, the same applies to that: when you drink, you swallow it. But the RIVM does have guidelines for how to deal with beer glasses: you really have to use detergent to remove the virus, also in the rinse water.
PResentator
OK, so dishwashing liquid.
If you cannot be infected by drinking or putting beer glasses to your mouth, why are there guidelines, and how can droplets be contagious? A drop can also be attached to a beer glass, right?
Question
It is said that there is not such a big risk for young people. In other countries, we still see the number of infections among young people increasing. How is that possible?
The answer doesn't even matter that much; The question already shows that the presenter does not know the difference between infections and mortality risk. With that knowledge, he could have turned it into a meaningful question.
A good answer would have been to mention the percentage that dies from an infection, also among young people. The RIVM conceals this or they say they do not know, which again raises the question: why all the fuss?
A little further on, they cannot explain what the one and a half meter rule is based on and it is again assumed that contamination is caused by droplets that end up in your mouth. What gibberish. Don't those people hear themselves talking?
Also later on about aerosols: no substantiation. "We stick to it: one and a half meters." While she has just explained how outbreaks take place via aerosols. She constantly talks herself into a trap. It's too terrible to watch.
"THE CORONAVIRUS: FABLES AS FACTS" is a better title.
