Maurice de Hond makes a lot of fuss and that is not for the first time. In that respect, he is for many the implausible figure who has already shouted 'Wolf!' three times. As a result, he started with a disadvantage and had to make a lot of noise to get any attention at all. He is getting better and better at that and indeed: the wolf is there this time.
In the fight against the ineffective - not to say murderous - corona policy, I caught sight of Maurice during his first appearance on TV talk show Op1. He had a theory about outbreaks caused by a certain humidity – at least that's what stuck with me. Too complicated and not appealing for such a talk show. In the meantime, that discussion has shifted to droplets versus floating microdroplets, which is easier to understand. When looking back from that broadcast Maurice had already finalized the hypothesis, only the narrative was not yet right. If he had focused on aerosols and 'inside versus outside', he could have made a better first move. Save those humidities (relative vs. specific) for the critical questions.
Critical journalism did its best so try to explain something to that:
Why did Maurice not succeed in convincing Beau?
Since then, Maurice has been banned by the 'mainstream' media. He was back at Op1 two months later (Ab Osterhuis is there almost daily/weekly!) but he did not get the opportunity for an explanation. and 1x with Beau who closed with the deadly "I'm not convinced". It would also be crazy if you were to be convinced in a few minutes. After all, you have been working for months to propagate government policy with heart and soul while it causes a lot of unnecessary suffering and death. To realize that, you need more time. The regret will come.
At Beau's house, Maurice sat together with two other intelligent, critical and concerned minds who crushed their credibility with a few blatant unscientific statements. It only needs to be a few to undermine a meaningful story. Maurice was unfortunately dragged into that fall. As if there were three alu hats in a row.
Maurice strikes back
The criticism of Maurice is twofold: he is not an "expert" and (therefore) his statements are not based on science. The misconception lies in the fact that an expert starts from his knowledge and continues to investigate a scientist. In that sense, Maurice is a better representative of science.
The counter-question to the RIVM was: "On what science is the one-and-a-half-meter society based?" That turned out to be a rule of thumb from a handbook from the 1930s, which no expert has had reason to doubt since. The fact that the RIVM accepts such a substantiation for itself already speaks volumes about measuring with different measures and the rigid tunnel vision they cling to.
However, a scientist like Maurice de Hond does see reason to doubt this. He himself goes looking for the source cited by the RIVM experts. In that standard work of medical science, a medical handbook by W.F. Wells in which, among other things, the behavior of large droplets is described. Maurice de Hond manages to dig up that book and digs through it. The main theme of that book is:
Droplet infections are primarily airborne: airborne epidemics are absent from an ecological population with adequate air hygiene".
Airborne droplets: Aerosols, in other words, where epidemics can be prevented by good ventilation.
ð—˜ð˜…ð—¶ð˜ ðŸ,ðŸ±ð—º ð—¿ð—²ð—´ð—²ð—¹!
Lees het artikel van Maurice hierover: https://www.maurice.nl/2020/06/18/game-set-het-zijn-de-aerosols/
