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.
Het begint al met de kop "Voor het ontwijken van aerosolen is zelfs de ventilator een slecht idee". Het aan elkaar koppelen van de begrippen "ventileren" en "slecht idee", waarom toch zo koppig?
For avoiding aerosols, even the fan is a bad idea - Some 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
"Met de erkenning dat het coronavirus ook kan worden verspreid met heel kleine druppels, aerosolen, komt er aandacht voor de noodzaak van ventilatie."
Welke erkenning? Richting Maurice de Hond zou er iets erkend kunnen worden misschien, zeker door de media "'sorry Maurice, je hebt al die tijd in de goede richting gewezen." Maar er is maar één instantie die van aerosolen en dus van ventilatie een topprioriteit kan maken, en dat is het RIVM (als die dat mogen van de WHO). Maar wat staat er bij de guidelines on the RIVM website:
Aerogenic
It is currently unclear whether aerogenous spread (via airborne particles) 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
"onduidelijk is nog hoe belangrijk die 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
"het kamp van de aerosolen ... zou vooral worden bevolkt door ingenieurs die niets van virussen weten, terwijl het kamp van de grote druppels werd aangevoerd door gerenommeerde virologen en epidemiologen."
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 een nieuw 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
"voor de meeste virale luchtweginfecties geldt dat ze worden overgebracht door grote druppels die worden uitgehoest en -geniest."
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.
Verder blijkt uit onderzoek naar gedrag van aerosolen in het algemeen dat zingen en spreken véél aerosolen genereert, en hoesten en niezen weinig. De virologische uitgangspunten zijn al decennia obsolete. Of zoals Prof. Dr. Voss het uitdrukte: "Dat is de basis, dat is gewoon zo. Onderzoek daarnaar zou worden afgekeurd."
Quote 6
"grote druppels blijven niet lang in de lucht hangen, maar vallen al snel naar de aarde. Ze kunnen iemand direct via inademing infecteren als die dichtbij staat, en indirect via de oppervlakten waarop ze belanden."
Large drops fall or swirl down. So you have to be quick or really be 'coughed' and inhale it. Aerosols remain available for inhalation for much longer and are approximately 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 you swallow cannot cause any damage. you really have to 'breathe' them.
Quote 7
"Met het vinden sporen van erfelijk materiaal van het virus staat nog niet vast dat het virus ook in infectueuze vorm wordt meegedragen."
That infections are transmitted aerogenously has been shown in other studies in which ferrets, guinea pigs and human subjects were infected aerogenously. Any other transmission was excluded in the various test setups. Dozens of studies have been conducted 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
"onduidelijk is in welke concentraties ze voorkomen én hoeveel virusdeeltjes iemand binnen moeten krijgen om Covid-19 op te lopen."
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 turning around and sweeping the sidewalk. According to them, it has not actually been proven that there is really something to those aerosols, but AS A PRECAUTION this road must 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."
Dat "koor" is een wat ongelukkig gezegde in deze context maar ik heb het gezang van het RIVM nog niet gehoord. Ik vermoed dat Trouw in het oor gefluisterd is dat ze dat wel doen, of zou zo'n journalist dat uit zijn duim zuigen? Op de laatste persconferentie is het woord ventilatie überhaupt niet gevallen. Wat Trouw hier beweert is gewoon niet waar. Het RIVM maakt geen deel uit van het koor, het zijn juist de dovemansoren.
Quote 10
"met een ventilatiesysteem dat voldoende lucht van buiten haalt en voldoet aan de geldende normen, is het risico van infectie via aerosolen waarschijnlijk veel kleiner dan langs de weg van grote druppels, aldus het RIVM."
It's unbelievable - That attention for those big drops again! And this is also incorrect. The 'applicable standards' have never been tested for viruses. They sometimes work with CO2 levels and then it stops. When it comes into play, the word 'probably' is suddenly sufficient to make something plausible. And they make the large drops a bit more weighty.
Please note that the RIVM already covers itself by stating that a ventilation system must meet both 'obtain sufficient air from outside' and, on top of that, 'the applicable standards'. In doing so, they say that the applicable standards themselves are not sufficient: you really have to ensure a sufficient supply of outside air. Yet the guidelines updated today state
RIVM-standpunt: "Het is op dit moment onduidelijk of aerogene verspreiding een relevante rol speelt bij de verspreiding van het virus. Indien daartoe aanleiding is, zal het huidige beleid worden herzien, waaronder dit advies over de ventilatienormen."
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.
