In that case the correct answer is "don't work". Since the outcome we care about is transmission, not about "number of particles emitted". We only care about the "particles" insofar as they contribute or don't contribute to infection of others. (I get the point you're making)
-
-
Our "common sense" doesn't really nanoscale.. The truth is that we don't know the answers to most things at the nanoscale, so we make our case at whatever scale we can understand, be it right or wrong, It's "common sense". ;-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No argument there. That is one of many reasons why I vehemently oppose the whole pseudoscientific mask trend. Masks seem like they would work if you don't think too hard about the dynamics at play. (or more broadly, whether we should even try to slow spread of SARS-2 in gen pop)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Did someone tell you we solved the problem of long-haulers? And if you don't know what the question means, you have some research to do about the virus.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Well, I definitely think that the hype around "long COVID" (I assume that's what you're referring to) is completely overblown, and to the extent it occurs it also occurs in other viruses we don't freak out about. But more importantly, I do take that into account. Briefly...
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
You base that "thinking" on what? A hunch?
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I would use the word "priors". I've looked at the literature that claimed long-term hard damage, long-term lung damage, etc. In almost all cases it's overblown or statistically irrelevant. Let me give you some studies here:
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-27359/v1 … > Radiological abnormalities in patients of severe COVID-19 could be completely absorbed with no residual lung injury in more than two months’ follow-up
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1440-1843.2003.00522.x … (SARS-1 pathology) > Preliminary evidence suggests that these lung function abnormalities will improve over time This is obviously SARS-1 but I think SARS-1 is a great model of what severe COVID-19 looks like.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
I know that a lot of the "long-term damage" claims are about more than just lung issues. Like I said, most of the literature I've seen is not very convincing. A couple months of fatigue following SARS-1 or severe SARS-2 infection? Sure. Life-long ME/CFS? Vanishingly unlikely.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
How do you calculate the odds?
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.