CU77 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:55 pm
wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:25 pm
where did the who say the evidence for aerosol transmission, indoor or otherwise, is convincing?
They said they're changing the guidelines to take aerosol transmission into account. Why change the guidelines if you're not convinced by the evidence?
Anyway, as a physicist, I've believed from day one that aerosol transmission had to be a bigger vector than surface transmission. Ample evidence for decades that people speaking, coughing, whatever, aerosolize whatever is in their mouths and noses. Why should the coronavirus be exempt from this process? And if it's on surfaces, it had to get there through the air. Which are you more likely to encounter, air or surfaces?
they had a release today:
Airborne transmission of coronavirus in restaurants, gyms and other closed spaces can't be ruled out, WHO says
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/airborn ... idappshare
the release is embedded in a link in the article. i wasn't being a wise guy, i was wondering if there was a differing statement somewhere. the "convincing evidence" quote had been utilized in numerous articles the last couple days via authors/researchers of the aerosol statement. maybe where you got it from. for now, their updated guidance is they can't rule it out.
it would seem to be a very tough thing to research conclusively, but what do i know? i also wouldn't know which opinion (for now) about the present day research has more qualified/believable guys and gals, but for my money the WHO folks don't leave a really high bar to get over. so there's that.
the closest they come is say that other respiratory airborne viruses can transmit that way.
what it comes down to i guess is droplet size, how long it can hang in the air, and how much virus is needed to infect. would seem hvac systems and general air flow become more important and not so much masks (non-medical) in that event, but guess we'll see.