{this is a sequel to the first email exchange.)
vr 24-7-2020 20:12
Dear Anton,
be sure to read the original publication, where we formulate our findings in our own words, journalists tend to simplify things (that is also their job), and try to indicate the relevance of the piece by applying it to the current situation, but if you want to know our precise results, you will have to read the piece. We are not talking about aerosols or large droplets at all, nor about one and a half meters, what we show is that if 1) face masks reduce contagiousness, 2) washing hands reduces the chance of contracting the virus and 3) there is a reduction in the number of contacts (where contact is defined as a possible moment of transmission), then, if the 3 measures are sufficiently efficient, the epidemic can be controlled, and we show how efficient the measures should be.
Regarding the Klompas article, that there is criticism of an article is very common, I also read it and I also scanned them the references. This found no reason to reject the piece right away.
What I'm wondering is, you seem to want science to provide hard evidence that the role of aerosols is limited. What type of evidence would you consider sufficient?
There is no one who claims that aerosols do not play a role in the infection route, that you can find 10 or 100 articles that suggest aerosol spread in a certain situation does not mean that it is the dominant route.
(If I find 100 chain smokers of 100 years, that does not mean that smoking is healthy).
The view of most scientists is that aerosols are probably less important for dispersion than aerosols, but that does not rule out that they are the dominant route in certain situations. Precisely because the circumstances are different everywhere, there will be no simple answer. If there were good scientific evidence that aerosols were by far the most important, there would be plenty of scientists who would agree. Scientists are also just people who hate the Corona measures and if they were convinced that they are not necessary, they would certainly say so, it would only be good for your career to debunk the existing scientific theory.
yours sincerely,
Martin Bootsma
P.S. I think it is good if people follow the science critically, but on the basis of what I have seen so far, I am not convinced that aerosols are the dominant distribution route.
I don't want to put too much time in this discussion, so I don't go on all your points. If you have specific questions (especially in the field of mathematical modeling), I would like to help you with pleasure.
Hello Martin,
Thanks for your answer. I don't have to spend a lot of time on it either, don't worry.
[but sorry - it turned out to be quite a bit of text 😬.]
Your research
I am very interested in the research. It seems to me a challenge to weigh the importance of washing hands and face masks. I'm very curious how that was handled.
Are those contact moments not further specified? I'm going to read it first and also involved in last carnival. I am convinced that we have had outbreaks there due to aerosol contamination.
The newspaper simplifies
The message in the AD is certainly not a simplification of your description. They made something up about the premise of the study. I have no idea why the AD measures this so broadly. WHO communication guideline I think.
Viewpoint Klompas
I am familiar with the scientific process, polemics, etc. Criticism in the form of nuances, refinements, corrections, objections with substantiation, that is all healthy. Something different is happening here: the message of the piece is strongly criticized by authoritative scientists, among others, because of the enormous implications it has: many human lives are involved. This is a huge controversy - in my opinion a misconception - and then some Klompas claims that it is really true because he thinks so.
Because if you then look at what Klompas based the piece on, it is a swamp of outdated views with references dragged by the hair. I only saw that when I actually started reading them, looking for substantiation for his empty claims.
I will not 'reject' the piece either because it will certainly be useful to demonstrate the untenability of the classical position and to analyze the way of reasoning argumentation theoretically. Educational.
What do I expect from science?
I don't need hard, irrefutable and multiple evidence. Your question surprises me because I have already asked several times and very specifically for a handful (three to five) articles that make it plausible that drip theory is the dominant route. I think the 'Indirect contact' route has gradually been decimated.
If from a few pieces -or even just one!- I can make any sense of where the resistance to aerosols comes from, other than 'we have always done it this way' and 'this tunnel vision is the right one because we have always had it' (Andreas Voss's argument), then maybe I can understand what is happening.
The RIVM says it acts on the basis of science. Science must at least be documented, transparent, if necessary. repeatable, meeting logic and other criteria. Well, just show me! As a court expert you cannot be years behind science.
You also say that you have not been convinced of the dominance of aerosols. But what is the dominant route, and why do you think that? That shouldn't be such a difficult question, a link is sufficient.
It now seems as if the battle between the contagionists and the anti-contagionists has to be fought again (but in reverse), with Maurice as Florence Nightingale - who also fought for open windows! 😊
There is no one who claims that aerosols do not play a role
Yes: Jaap van Dissel, for example, who now reluctantly has to withdraw his droppings. The OMT (through Voss) is hardly interested, you know that, right? It is indeed claimed that aerosols play little or no role. The breakdown of society is based on it.
This is by definition a constant with every innovation
The argument “If it were true, there would be more scientists behind it” does not hold water when it comes to innovation. In the philosophy of science this is enormous. By definition, it takes a while before new insights, especially disruptive ones, are picked up by the establishment. If everyone immediately agrees, it is not an innovation. There are often many interests, including personal and business interests, linked to changes.
The annoying thing now is that (tens) thousands of lives are affected by the pace of implementation, where I think of the urgency of ventilation certifications, etc. The delay is extremely harmful and nothing happens.
The specific gravity of evidence
There's no way I'm taking the amount of evidence into account. 10 or 100 articles, I'm not sensitive to that. I will not easily say “There is more scientific evidence for the aerosol theory than..” etc. You say that yourself, in a national newspaper. Not meant literally, I understand that, but in the meantime it is there.
I simply can't find any study to support your assumption! Nothing at all, zero, nada. And apparently they don't exist because long texts are written, passionate pleas are made, but research is not an option. And yet continue to hold on to the biased position.
The RIVM's reference to Wells' book really hit home. Scientists who still say they don't accept the aerosol theory, despite the fact that a. they have no alternative and b. not even substantiated counterarguments, they really need to scratch their scientific heads and start collecting evidence like hell.
Still a quantitative approach?
“The view of most scientists is that aerosols are probably less important for dispersal than….” I certainly don't have that impression, regardless of how important I think it is. What matters to me is that policymakers find it. Can you count the scientists? I think it would be fun to write a script for that. The resistance against the aerosol deniers is really huge. World-renowned scientific experts speak out about it in no uncertain terms.
It is precisely the institutionalized scientists who are obstructive, the WHO/governments/RIVMs of this world and those who depend on them. I doubt that that is the majority of scientific thinkers.
