Oct 11, 2020 -- 8:03PM, Dr Crippen wrote:
You would have expected this research to be carried out before now. Oh I'm sure it has.These people pick and choose which data they use to suit their agendas.
They link to a paper which came out in April detailing similar findings. It’s not entirely clear how important a few virions are in infection by comparison with airborne spread but probably not very.
Oct 11, 2020 -- 8:27PM, Dotchinite wrote:
If even half the ways they claim this virus spreads were true we would have all had it about 5 times by now.
Agree. There has definitely been a lot of fearmongering, which I really dislike as a public health measure, although I do understand why the more pessimistic messages were pushed out early on.
Oct 11, 2020 -- 8:40PM, Dr Crippen wrote:
Fatslogger 10 Oct 20 19:37although I do understand why the more pessimistic messages were pushed out early on. Like not banning incoming flights from virus hot spots and allowing Cheltenham to go ahead?
Those weren’t really public health messaging decisions. I think serious epidemiological investigation of where U.K. cases came from didn’t suggest that single events like Cheltenham or football matches (Liverpool v A. Madrid always gets a mention) mattered nearly as much as a steady influx of people from high prevalence areas, mostly in Europe. So yes, somewhat agree on how we dealt with incoming flights. I think banning them would have been very hard but quarantine would have been an option, albeit one that I suspect would still have been railed against by many as authoritarian at the time.