Ja, vad säger läkarvetenskapen???
Ingen vetenskaplig kunskap har någonsin växlat om från en sanning till en annan över en natt. Man diskuterar just nu om man kanske borde definiera om smittovägarna. Den länken har du tydligen också missat. Här kommer citatet igen:
In a new study published in May, they propose to merge the two non-contact transmission modes, large-droplet and aerosol, into a unique non-contact airborne transmission mode.
Och i Google translate version;
?I en ny studie som publicerades i maj föreslår de att de två beröringsfria transmissionslägena, stora droppar och aerosol, slås samman till ett unikt beröringsfritt luftburet överföringsläge.?
Den finska motsvarigheten till FHM talar om luftburen smitta.
?Luftburen smitta har observerats i inomhusutrymmen med dålig ventilation. I vissa fall hade den insjuknade personen dessutom andats kraftigt, till exempel sjungit, skrikit eller talat med hög röst.?
thl.fi/sv/web/infektionssjukdomar-och-vaccinationer/aktuellt/aktuellt-om-coronaviruset-covid-19/smitta-och-skydd-coronaviruset/coronavirussmitta-och-inkubationstid
Sprider finska myndigheter desinformation?
Hem och arbetet är väl de riktigt drivande?
Var ett tag sedan jag dök iden och kommer inte ihåg vilken ordning de kommer i.
En extremt intressant fråga är varför man vill göra barn till en drivande , och att man jämförde med jobba och även festa fick komma med där.
ABC är en fullblown desinformatör, för ingen kan ha så fel så länge utan det är medvetet.
Och sen att kommentera saker som sker i Sverige och sen inte ens bo där, och få det så galet fel, det borde vara en hint till ABC att det inte går så bra där.
Det där med att ABC inte förstår skillnader hur patogen sprids och vad man kallar de olika funktioner inom läkevetenskapen, den är faktiskt makalös och den semantiklek som följer av ABC i tron semantik skulle få ABC att få rätt någonsin.
Min fråga är hur kan man inbilla sig veta bättre än något som har varit ett verktyg och definiera ett virus, och som varit på plats så länge.
Och sen inbilla sig semantik skulle ge ABC rätt, helt otroligt faktiskt, men ABC vet att det är fel också, det gör det bara konstigt.
Och vem mer än du har avslöjat dom felen, extremt bra jobbat där.
Jag är den som istället upprepar fakta de vägrar komma ihåg.
Hur som helst, det är lite udda detta med barn och varför de tror att de är drivande, precis som de inte bodde hemma med de smittade föräldrarna.
Undra vad dom vill ha sagt med det med barn och drivande och när det inte är?
Vet du?
Jag förstår inte en så konstig sak faktiskt, för det verkar som det saknas nått i deras argumentation som vi inte får reda på någon gång.
The effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has been debated since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. One important question is whether masks are effective despite the forceful expulsion of respiratory matter during coughing and sneezing. Cheng et al. convincingly show that most people live in conditions in which the airborne virus load is low. The probability of infection changes nonlinearly with the amount of respiratory matter to which a person is exposed. If most people in the wider community wear even simple surgical masks, then the probability of an encounter with a virus particle is even further limited. In indoor settings, it is impossible to avoid breathing in air that someone else has exhaled, and in hospital situations where the virus concentration is the highest, even the best-performing masks used without other protective gear such as hazmat suits will not provide adequate protection.
Science, abg6296, this issue p. 1439
Airborne transmission by droplets and aerosols is important for the spread of viruses. Face masks are a well-established preventive measure, but their effectiveness for mitigating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is still under debate. We show that variations in mask efficacy can be explained by different regimes of virus abundance and are related to population-average infection probability and reproduction number. For SARS-CoV-2, the viral load of infectious individuals can vary by orders of magnitude. We find that most environments and contacts are under conditions of low virus abundance (virus-limited), where surgical masks are effective at preventing virus spread. More-advanced masks and other protective equipment are required in potentially virus-rich indoor environments, including medical centers and hospitals. Masks are particularly effective in combination with other preventive measures like ventilation and distancing.
Airborne transmission is one of the main pathways for the transmission of respiratory viruses, including the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (1). Wearing face masks has been widely advocated to mitigate transmission. Masks are thought to protect people in two ways: (i) source control, reducing the emission and spread of respiratory viruses through airborne droplets and aerosols, and (ii) wearer protection, reducing the inhalation of airborne respiratory viruses.
The effectiveness of masks, however, is still under debate. Compared with N95 or FFP2 respirators, which have very low particle penetration rates (~5%), surgical and similar masks exhibit higher and more variable penetration rates (~30 to 70%) (2, 3). Given the large number of particles emitted upon respiration and especially upon sneezing or coughing (4), the number of respiratory particles that may penetrate masks is substantial, which is one of the main reasons for doubts about their efficacy in preventing infections. Moreover, randomized clinical trials have shown inconsistent or inconclusive results, with some studies reporting only a marginal benefit or no effect of mask use (5, 6). Thus, surgical and similar masks are often considered to be ineffective. On the other hand, observational data show that regions or facilities with a higher percentage of the population wearing masks have better control of COVID-19 (7–9). So how are we to explain these contrasting results and apparent inconsistencies?
In this work, we develop a quantitative model of airborne virus exposure that can explain these contrasting results and provide a basis for quantifying the efficacy of face masks. We show that mask efficacy strongly depends on airborne virus abundance. On the basis of direct measurements of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples and population-level infection probabilities, we find that the virus abundance in most environments is sufficiently low for masks to be effective in reducing airborne transmission.
...
Masks reduce the infection probability by as much as their filter efficiency for respiratory particles in the virus-limited regime but much less in the virus-rich regime (Fig. 3). Accordingly, experimental investigations may find low mask efficacies when they are performed under virus-rich conditions. Together with other influencing factors, like consistent and correct mask use (supplementary text, section S7.3), changes between virus-rich and virus-limited conditions may contribute to divergent results reported from laboratory studies and randomized controlled trials in different environments (20) (supplementary text, section S8). Notably, the increasing effectiveness of mask use at low virus abundance implies synergistic effects of combining masks with other preventive measures that reduce the airborne-virus concentration, such as ventilation and social distancing. For example, ventilation can change an environment from virus-rich to virus-limited conditions, which may be particularly important for medical centers with relatively high SARS-CoV-2 abundances (Fig. 2 and supplementary text, section S6). On the other hand, not only the efficacy of face masks but also the efficacy of distancing may be reduced in virus-rich environments (supplementary text, section S6). The more measures that are used, the more effective each measure will be in containing the virus transmission. If the inhaled dose may also affect the severity of infections (14), as is currently being debated (24), masks may still be useful even if the reduced dose still leads to an infection.
....
Enrichment of viruses in the aerosol mode can enhance their transmission because smaller particles remain suspended for a longer time, which leads to stronger accumulation and dispersion in the air. This may cause higher airborne virus concentrations, inhaled virus numbers, and infection risks, especially in densely occupied rooms with poor ventilation and long periods of exposure. Moreover, small aerosol particles have a higher penetration rate and higher probability of reaching the lower respiratory tract (figs. S5 and S6).
...
When people see images or videos of millions of respiratory particles exhaled by talking or coughing, they may be afraid that simple masks with limited filtration efficiency (e.g., 30 to 70%) cannot really protect them from inhaling these particles. However, as only few respiratory particles contain viruses and most environments are in a virus-limited regime, wearing masks can keep the number of inhaled viruses in a low-Pinf regime and can explain the observed efficacy of face masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, unfavorable conditions and the large variability of viral loads may lead to a virus-rich regime in certain indoor environments, such as medical centers treating COVID-19 patients. In such environments, high-efficiency masks and additional protective measures like efficient ventilation should be used to keep the infection risk low. The nonlinear dependence of mask efficacy on airborne virus concentration—i.e., the higher mask efficacy at lower virus abundance—also highlights the importance of combining masks with other preventive measures. Effective ventilation and social distancing will reduce ambient virus concentrations and increase the effectiveness of face masks in containing the virus transmission. Moreover, high compliance and correct use of masks is important to ensure the effectiveness of universal masking in reducing the reproduction number for COVID-19 (supplementary text, section S7.3, and fig. S11) (20)."
Så vad säger man om detta... precis som artikeln i El Pais sade så säger rapporten i Science att mask inte skyddar i trånga oventilerade utrymmen men kan minska infektionsrisken om social distansering och god luftväxling finns.
Är detta verkligen nytt? Detta bekräftar det artikeln i El Pais sade och det bekräftar att de viktigaste åtgärderna är att inte utsätta sig ( eller andra) för trängsel och situationer där mycket aerosoler bildas, tex vinbaren om det blir högljudda diskussioner där.. eller medical centers treating covid19 patients - som det uttryckligen skrivs i Science