You need proper large N studies for that, meanwhile we still cannot get people to accept the transmission paths highlighted by these studies, i.e. indoor dining is not a good idea.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
Obviously I agree this can make the case that these transmission paths can happen. But using the existence of any reports as the basis for policy decisions would ban outdoor dining as well, along with schools, etc.
3 replies 1 retweet 33 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden @zeynep
I agree with Wes. Be very careful when taking a single event and generalizing it. The article itself is fairly careful not to make stronger statements than warranted, using principles all scientists follow. "Evidence of..." "...is possible." In the event that the 1/2
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
You gotta realize one case is already very significant with so few cases in East Asia. Chinese researchers also. published serval papers on how air flow results in long range transmission in restaurants & bus settings This is basically mask thing all over again
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I agree on the part about few cases in S. Korea. But, still, how can you reliably say that because this particular chain of transmissions happened this way, in this setting, it is more commonplace than other chains of transmission in other settings? You cannot. This is 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarloDallapicc1 @KuccoSong and
the foundation of statistical analysis to infer probability of different hypotheses. The bus of monks and the restaurant in China are two other well-documented cases. The statistics on which we are trying to base broad conclusions is very small, unfortunately. 2/3
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CarloDallapicc1 @KuccoSong and
There are too many things being inferred, without a legitimate basis. Maybe you think I am being overly rigorous in my reasoning - but this is how scientists reason and reach conclusions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Or maybe you are not following the evidence, if you only knw three cases. There's a database with 1600+ mass transmission events (more than a few people infected) and there are only maybe two pure outdoor cases. There have been thousands and thousands of reports.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I follow your logic, yes. Is there a statistical analysis of the 1600+ mass transmission events published/documented somewhere? I am curious. Do we have to worry about over-representation of scenarios where identifying the transmission chain is easiest?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
So yes, I agree there is certainly some bias in terms of what's easier to trace (fomite/aerosol is very hard to distinguish, for example) but the ratios are really overwhelming. This is the spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c9jwMyT1lw2P0d6SDTno6nHLGMtpheO9xJyGHgdBoco/edit#gid=1812932356 … And
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But I've been reading transmission papers pretty much every day since March, and yes ideally I'd have kept better records myself, but there have been more systematic meta-reviews. It's almost all outdoors to the degree that would be really hard to explain by tracing bias.
-
-
Thanks, I will look at that!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.