Yet another proof of infectious aerosols. This time different equipment was used, which made it possible to 'cultivate' the virus from the air samples again - and that was indeed not easy.
This new research really puts an end to the last excuses of Jaap van Dissel and Andreas Voss, because
- Viruses can therefore indeed be grown from aerosols again
- It has now been demonstrated not only with influenza, but also with the virus that causes COVID19.
At the end of their report, the scientists conclude the following in terms of aerosol contamination:
The one and a half meter rule:
- Does not help indoors
- Gives a false sense of security
- Leads to infections
- Leads to outbreaks
The public health implications are broad, especially as current best practices for limiting the spread of COVID-19 center on social distancing, wearing of face-coverings while in proximity to others and hand-washing. For aerosol-based transmission, measures such as physical distancing by 6 feet would not be helpful in an indoor setting, provide a false-sense of security and lead to exposures and outbreaks. With the current surges of cases, to help stem the COVID-19 pandemic, clear guidance on control measures against SARS-CoV-2 aerosols are needed
Viable SARS-CoV-2 in the air of a hospital room with COVID-19 patients
Nieuw voor aerosolen-ontkenners
Viral respiratory infections over distances greater than a few meters had already been repeatedly confirmed experimentally and also observed during outbreaks. However, our health advisors refused to accept this. The argument was that the equipment was inadequate to confirm it with measurements. That is of course the world upside down: you don't deny facts until you have measured them. That's like denying that the moon exists as long as you don't have a speck of dust from it. But they were so sure of their case: no investigation was necessary...
Well then, Professor Voss measured it out again at Op1, smiling satisfactorily: a Japanese colleague had not been able to capture live virus close to the mouth of a seriously ill COVID hospital patient, so it was not true that contamination could be spread over a distance through the air. What an arrogant brat there. If they had kept up to date with their professional literature, they would have known that these were measurement errors. His reasoning error was once again underlined in another study at the beginning of this month.
Our results may also be consistent with aerosol transmission occurring early on in the course of disease, well before COVID-19 patients are ill enough to require hospitalization.
Environmental and Aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 Among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients, 9 sept. 2020
If you are not just busy with your microscope and not so obsessively focused on ICU and hospitals, then you should be shocked by an observation like this. It's an explanation why you couldn't find something. As a scientist you should be happy with deepening your knowledge, instead of seeing it as a disqualification from your own toolkit.
(According to some, the same blind spot is also the cause of denial of HCQ: In the hospital it is already too late for the most effective control)
Aerosol denial has of course been nonsensical for a long time, but above all it has been (and still is) very harmful to public health and therefore - in my opinion - a ruthless stubbornness that you could call criminal. Society has been severely damaged by the persistence of measures that completely paralyzed social functioning and gave free rein to outbreaks in many places.
Companies, catering establishments and public buildings are designed at one and a half meters, while this rule is not based on anything and it has been known for many years - and scientifically proven - that respiratory viruses spread through the air further than a few meters. What does help against this contamination route is ventilation and air purification (such as ionization, UV light and HEPA filtering). But that subject is being kept silent by the RIVM/OMT and Rutte. The latter should have intervened long ago. Apart from canceling events, the measures have made little difference. In certain situations they could be useful to prevent incidental infections, but that's it.
Now on to the flu seasons
Because the existence of infectious aerosols has been a scientific fact for years, the coronavirus also shows how virologists have been sitting on their hands during the flu waves. For example, in the past three years, 20,000 people have died during flu waves. A large number of these deceased would still be among us today if the flu spread had been tackled proactively. This is now clearly coming to light: nothing serious has ever been done about ventilation, even though there was sufficient scientific reason.
Think of how outraged people already are about the mistake with the face masks. Criminal charges are being considered. What will happen when the penny drops for the relatives of those 20,000 flu deaths (mind you: only over the last three years)? No wonder the smug virologists responsible continue to ignore this knowledge and will insist to their last breath that it is still not true because that is just the way it is. No one likes to dig their own grave. I will therefore wonder whether this umpteenth signal will finally have an impact. This research is so specific that there is no escape from this.
Something about the medical profession and competences
Don't be too hard on the court virologists for their apparent incompetence. They are completely wrong time and time again, but they also work with a now outdated toolkit that they received from their professional training many decades ago.
Remember, most doctors have learned a trade. Just like dentists and surgeons, they have had academic training, but they certainly have not all become thinkers and researchers. The best doctors don't. They are not trained to question, analyze or falsify their knowledge. That is a different talent and is not stimulated in vocational training.
The doctor's profession is different: a doctor must reassure, give confidence, know the human body and try to make people better. Knowledge of medicine is important, as is dealing with people. They are not academically trained as researchers, methodologists or data analysts.
It is not without reason that a system of study points has been devised to at least encourage doctors to take additional training courses every now and then, because systematically keeping up with your own field of expertise is simply not in everyone's DNA (and is also a lot to ask for). Doctors have to be good at a lot of things. Questioning, analyzing and falsifying are not necessarily part of this. They are trained to practice the profession of doctor. A good doctor is worth his weight in gold – in his role as a doctor. He will help his patient out, even if the entire Medical Center has to collapse!
I hope my own doctors spend time with me instead of hanging their noses above the books all day. However, I am not the desired focus of someone who has to shape national policy. That is really a completely different profession.
