Read on Twitter
[thread] 1 of 7
I've been waiting for this letter to be published. Let's address some important aspects. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-09/a-new-year-s-feast-spread-the-virus-and-now-divides-scientists
I've been waiting for this letter to be published. Let's address some important aspects. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-09/a-new-year-s-feast-spread-the-virus-and-now-divides-scientists
2 of 7
At the bottom is an observed event -- the infection of several people at a restaurant in China by someone who showed symptoms later in the day. At question is how that spread happened.
At the bottom is an observed event -- the infection of several people at a restaurant in China by someone who showed symptoms later in the day. At question is how that spread happened.
3 of 7
Reference 10 in the published letter is a study that looked at the airflow dynamics in the restaurant, applied physics, and concluded that only droplets, not aerosols, would have caused the observed spread.
Reference 10 in the published letter is a study that looked at the airflow dynamics in the restaurant, applied physics, and concluded that only droplets, not aerosols, would have caused the observed spread.
4 of 7
The scientists in the letter started with the conclusion that it was aerosols, then created a model mathe-magically to support their conclusion.
The scientists in the letter started with the conclusion that it was aerosols, then created a model mathe-magically to support their conclusion.
5 of 7
The first study was good science. The modeling on which the letter is based is whatever passes for science in Flat Earth circles.
The first study was good science. The modeling on which the letter is based is whatever passes for science in Flat Earth circles.
6 of 7
Something to remember: Both are based on modeling -- neither collected and cultured the virus. Importantly, there's not a study that collects the virus from purported aerosols and produces a viable culture -- but several have failed.
Something to remember: Both are based on modeling -- neither collected and cultured the virus. Importantly, there's not a study that collects the virus from purported aerosols and produces a viable culture -- but several have failed.
7 of 7
The aerosol-based belief still can't pass one critical test. It can't show us a viable virus to go with the idea, much less in sufficient quantity for infection of a person.
Ignore the hype. It's fear porn and Flat Earth science-substitute; no substance.
The aerosol-based belief still can't pass one critical test. It can't show us a viable virus to go with the idea, much less in sufficient quantity for infection of a person.
Ignore the hype. It's fear porn and Flat Earth science-substitute; no substance.
