You have to be for fun this article read. Your methodological shoes fall off. Examples:
From the RIVM guideline, dated 18 May 2020:
In short: ventilation is always good but not a corona factor. They argue that as follows:
- From a study to see if ferrets can infect each other through the air (which was the case), the RIVM finds that those ferrets have been too close to each other. How close that was and whether it should have been 1.5 meters for ferrets is not specified (I'll find out*).
But RIVM sees a ray of hope there: it could also be possible that contamination has been in accordance with the RIVM's direct contact theory. RIVM therefore prefers the previously adopted position.
[*Edit July 8, 2020: Somewhere I read that this was 10 cm. It was not stated whether the ferrets coughed or sneezed at all. I have now seen studies - with mice - where the link between contamination and ventilation has been measured in different contamination scenarios: the more air flow, the fewer infections. There are also experiments where the animals' air was connected via a tube, so that they could not cough on each other, but only floating particles could go around the corner to infect the other group. See bottom of this article. There is plenty of evidence, you really have to try hard not to see it.] - In the case of The infected cruise ship wordt gesteld dat "mogelijk transmissie heeft plaatsgevonden door de airconditioning, maar door de opzet van de studie kunnen andere routes niet worden uitgesloten."
Because contamination via direct contact is not specifically excluded, RIVM prefers the previously adopted position. The fact that transmission will be via 5G has not been ruled out in that study either. Unfortunately, that is not a previously taken position by the RIVM, but what is not can still come. So alu hats, keep hope! - With the help of Experimental Exhibits have shown that the coronavirus can hang in the air for a long time, a basic condition for the aerosol hypothesis: airborne transmission.
Helaas heeft het RIVM geen peer-reviewed studies kunnen vinden over "Non-experimental" situaties dus nee, alles bij elkaar is er geen enkele reden om de RIVM-doctrine eens grondig tegen het licht te houden.
Everything shows that the RIVM wants to hear that it is impossible to infect each other other other than through direct contact. Until then, they are not interested in any other or even additional hypothesis. So that will never happen.
Basic knowledge of methodology and statistics is enough to understand that you have to do something with all those signals that point independently of each other in the same direction. Surely I can hope that those courses are also part of a study like virology?
Link to the RIVM substantiation: https://lci.rivm.nl/aerogene-verspreiding-sars-cov-2-en-ventilatiesystemen-onderbouwing
Just two of the hundreds of articles about aerosols:
