That paper appears to literally assume your conclusion
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
Because there is no other good way to explain it. Sick person was in fixed positions in room singing, did not touch others. Fomites low likelihood per CDC. How can person spit enough droplets within 1 m if 53 people?
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
That's just a circular argument tho. "It is because it must be". Many epidemiological explanations e.g. recall bias which might explain it, which is why epidemiologists have been more cautious with inference
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
No it is not. It is likely to be, because it can explain it w/o contortionism. And because none of the alternative explanations are plausible.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
If you don't think that there are plausible ways in which a group of people who moved around and socialised for 2+ hours might have interacted closely enough to spread disease via droplets and fomites then I'd recommend reading up on the topic e.g.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828811/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
They did NOT move aroudn and socialize for 2 hrs. They entered for 10 min. Knew about distancing, no shake hands. Sang in fixed positions, 10 min break. We know the positions, nobody within 2 m range of droplets from index patient!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @GidMK and
Now, can you point out an outbreak we can definitively attribute to fomites or ballistic droplets? I haven't seen any. They generally conclude "droplets and fomites" without evidence that aerosols were not important. That's unscientific, evidence of deeply ingrained bias
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @GidMK and
To say "because it could potentially be explained by droplets / fomites, that disproves aerosols" is flawed logic. - We could say of almost every out break "because it can easily be explained by aerosols, that means that fomites / droplets not important." Which would be wrong too
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
You've mischaracterized both the study and the epidemiological argument. If you want to tilt at straw men, go ahead, but count me out
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
Now, can you point out an outbreak we can definitively attribute to fomites or ballistic droplets?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Nope. You cannot definitively rule out either one that's the point
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.