Trouw had on 15 August an article about aerosols that the dogs don't like to eat. How they reluctantly and smirkingly try to shuffle out of the corner of their months-long journalistic blunder, it is shocking.
It starts with the headline "For avoiding aerosols, even the fan is a bad idea". Linking the concepts of "venting" and "bad idea", why so stubborn?
For avoiding aerosols, even the fan is a bad idea – A few sentences from the article highlighted
The Trouw article apparently has to move towards aerosols without acknowledging that the newspaper has been writing blatant untruths for months and the RIVM has been dead wrong for just as long. Why? That remains a matter of conjecture. The journalists have simply left it at that, or the editors have been asked not to undermine the RIVM. It could just be silliness, and if it's not, it might just be reader deception.
Quote 1
"With the recognition that the coronavirus can also be spread with very small droplets, aerosols, attention is being paid to the need for ventilation."
What recognition? Towards Maurice de Hond something could perhaps be acknowledged, especially by the media "'sorry Maurice, you have been pointing in the right direction all this time.'" But there is only one body that can make aerosols and therefore ventilation a top priority, and that is the RIVM (if they are allowed to do so by the WHO). But what does the guidelines on the RIVM website:
Aerogenic
It is currently unclear whether airborne dispersal (via airborne particulate matter) plays a relevant role in the spread of the virus. […]
For homes and (commercial) buildings, including indoor sports venues, it is therefore not necessary for the time being to deviate from the current requirements for ventilation (air exchange) in the Building Decree and the applicable national guidelines.
Guidelines Covid-19 website RIVM
RIVM-CIb has not received any signal from GGDs that aerogenic transmission has taken place.
Substantiation of COVID-19 guidelines webite RIVM
So why does Trouw write about the recognition of aerosols? Nothing is recognized, is it? The Maassluis incident is simply being covered up. Are we cleaning up the streets? Will we soon be acting as if we have always said it?
Quote 2
"It is still unclear how important that route is."
No, it's already pretty clear. Dozens of studies already give a good picture.
In The references of this piece, which urgently calls for more preventive attention to and research into aerosols, you will find clarity about how important it is: very important. Example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32294574/
Quote 3
"The camp of aerosols ... would be populated mainly by engineers who know nothing about viruses, while the camp of the big droplets was led by renowned virologists and epidemiologists."
Completely incorrect, of course, because the early whistleblowers were renowned virologists. People John Ioannidis, Wolfgang Wodarg, Knut Wittkowski made a name for themselves early on. Not to mention the homegrown dissidents.
Quote 4
"Sars-CoV-2 was a new virus"
If it was so different from Sars-CoV-1, I would have chosen a more distinctive name. Coronaviruses have been circulating in the flu wave for decades. I would have liked to have seen a scientific basis for why Sars-CoV-1 and Sars-CoV-2 would be so different in terms of transmission routes.
Quote 5
"Most viral respiratory infections are transmitted by large droplets that are coughed out and sneezed out."
The really dangerous respiratory infections were immediately investigated and found to be aerogenic (SARS, MERS). The harmless ones received less attention (influenza, colds), but they have now also been scientifically proven to spread aerogenically.
Furthermore, research into the behaviour of aerosols in general shows that singing and speaking generate a lot of aerosols, and coughing and sneezing little. The virological assumptions have been obsolete for decades. Or as Prof. Dr. Voss put it: "That's the basis, that's just the way it is. Research into that would be frowned upon."
Quote 6
"Large droplets don't linger in the air for long, but soon fall to the earth. They can infect someone directly through inhalation if they are nearby, and indirectly through the surfaces they land on."
Large drops fall or swirl down. So you have to be quick or really 'cough up' and breathe it in. Aerosols remain available for inhalation for much longer and are about 20 times more infectious than larger droplets because they end up deeper in the lungs (large droplets mainly end up in the upper respiratory tract).
OMT members have even explained to NPO1 that drops that you swallow cannot cause any damage. You really have to 'breathe in' them.
Quote 7
"By finding traces of genetic material of the virus, it has not yet been established that the virus is also carried in an infectious form."
The aerogenic transmission of infections has been demonstrated in other studies in which ferrets, guinea pigs and human subjects were infected aerogenically. Any other transmission was excluded in the various test setups. Dozens of studies have been done with corona, influenza and cold viruses.
The problem lies more in sampling and culturing viruses. The technology for this does not yet appear to be foolproof.
Quote 8
"It is unclear in what concentrations they occur and how many virus particles someone has to ingest to contract Covid-19."
So what? Please find out later, shall we save some lives first?
A child can understand that the real-life circumstances cannot simply be captured in a number. We are talking about degrees of infectivity, dispersion, evaporation, air movement, temperature, humidity, UV light, viral load, immune reactions that vary from person to person, etc. etc.
Keep in mind that these were (and still are) arguments for some to downplay aerosols.
Then Trouw starts to turn around and sweep the sidewalk. According to them, it has not really been demonstrated that there is really something with those aerosols, but AS A PRECAUTION, this road should also be blocked as much as possible...
Quote 9
“The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), scientists and installers are shouting in unison that you should not recirculate air in one room, because that will only keep potentially contaminated aerosols in the air longer.“
That "choir" is a somewhat unfortunate saying in this context, but I have not yet heard the singing of the RIVM. I suspect that Trouw has been whispered in the ear that they do, or would such a journalist make that up? At the last press conference, the word ventilation was not mentioned at all. What Trouw claims here is simply not true. The RIVM is not part of the choir, it has fallen on deaf ears.
Quote 10
"With a ventilation system that gets enough air from outside and meets the applicable standards, the risk of infection via aerosols is probably much smaller than along the way of large droplets, according to the RIVM."
It's unbelievable – Again that attention for those big drops! And this is again incorrect. The 'applicable standards' have never been tested for viruses. They sometimes work with CO2 levels and then it stops. If it suits their stall, the word 'probably' is suddenly enough to make something plausible. And they make the big drops a bit more weighty.
Please note that the RIVM is already covering itself by stating that a ventilation system must meet both 'getting enough air from outside' and on top of that 'the applicable standards'. In doing so, they are saying that the applicable standards are not sufficient in themselves: you really have to ensure a sufficient supply of outside air. However, the guidelines updated today state that
RIVM's position: "It is currently unclear whether aerogenic spread plays a relevant role in the spread of the virus. If there is reason to do so, the current policy will be reviewed, including this advice on ventilation standards."
Neither the website nor the guidelines demonstrate knowledge about aerosols as a transmission route
Wie snapt het nog? Ze begonnen met 100% advies op basis van 50% kennis, naar eigen zeggen. Inmiddels is dat kennisniveau gezakt naar ongeveer 20% van wat er beschikbaar is.
