New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

We've been listening to the "maskholes" for over a year now...

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Blabbering about "the science" that says you can get covid from breathing the air at your local supermarket. In all that time, would you think that maybe an actual "scientist" would decide to, you know, actually do experiments to discover if there is any covid in the (shared) air we breathe? Interestingly enough, there have been a few. So why do you suppose we haven't heard of any of these experiments from the mainstream media that has been pushing covid fear porn 24/7 throughout?

If you guessed "because they couldn't find any evidence of viable virus in them" - go to the head of the class. Surprise - the "science" behind masking isn't as "settled" as you are told by the techno-elites who are now in full control of every aspect of our lives, thanks to the left-wing maskscist movement. Yes, they are either that evil or stupid - your call.

The "evidence" they always point to for "proof" of "airborne" transmission is anecdotal evidence, such as choir practice or church service, where it is entirely possible the infected people either ate (or drank) something that could have been prepared by an infected person, or touched each other in some way (such as clasping hands) which then led ingestion of the virus by a healthy person, who ended up infected.

The few actual scientific studies that have made the light of day (if you can call totally ignored by the press and buried in academic papers on obscure web sites "light of day") were done in health care settings (hospitals and nursing homes) and one also included readings from a prison. All but one were "unable to find viable virus" in any of their samples. The one that claims it did used a PCR test with a (ridiculous) 45 cycle standard that amphlifies the virus particles in a way that I might suggest is "grotesque" over kill.

What I find fascinating is that one of these studies said the highest concentration of airborne (non-viable) virus RNA they found was around the nurses' station, which may (or may not) be due to them breathing through masks saturated with covid virus particles. That's hard to say without a deeper dive, but suffice it to (safely) say that it's not because they are carrying the virus (at least not internally). It could also simply be the virus "off-gassing" from their clothes.

Which brings me to the experiments that are touted as "proving" the airborne transmissability of covid virus - which involve placing animals in cages and pumping air from one cage to the other via ducts. First of all, if there is some possibility of passing the virus from one person's exhale to another's inhale - putting them side by side and pumping air directly from the one's space to the other's for 12 hours straight, well, lets just say I'm not completely ruling out that, under certain circumstances, the virus can be inhaled in an infectuous state. But you aren't forced to breathe another's exhalings in a confined space for hours on end (except, of course, in your home where, lets face it, no one is wearing masks). Interestingly, even the ferret experiment admitted that they couldn't actually prove that the route of transmission was "airborne" virus, and that it might simply have been the case that the virus particles (fomites) traveled through the duct and landed on the uninfected ferret's fur, which was then ingested through "self grooming."

So, unless you are licking your clothes when you get home from the grocery store, the chances of you getting covid merely by passing by an infected person, even in a confined space, approaches zero. Remember that the next time one of these "maskholes" claims they "saved your life" by making you wear a mask. Always keep in mind that the highest concentration of (non-viable) airborne covid RNA the scientists found was near the nurses station, where they were all (presumably) wearing the damn masks!

Oh, and a coda - there was an announcement made back in February of a study that was going to be doing the same sort of air sampling in shopping malls, grocery stores and other (public) common areas. Not a damn word since about this study, and one at this point should wonder why - is it because it (like the medical facility studies) found exactly zero evidence of infectious material in any of their air samples? MMmmmmmmm, could be...
 
Blabbering about "the science" that says you can get covid from breathing the air at your local supermarket. In all that time, would you think that maybe an actual "scientist" would decide to, you know, actually do experiments to discover if there is any covid in the (shared) air we breathe? Interestingly enough, there have been a few. So why do you suppose we haven't heard of any of these experiments from the mainstream media that has been pushing covid fear porn 24/7 throughout?

If you guessed "because they couldn't find any evidence of viable virus in them" - go to the head of the class. Surprise - the "science" behind masking isn't as "settled" as you are told by the techno-elites who are now in full control of every aspect of our lives, thanks to the left-wing maskscist movement. Yes, they are either that evil or stupid - your call.

The "evidence" they always point to for "proof" of "airborne" transmission is anecdotal evidence, such as choir practice or church service, where it is entirely possible the infected people either ate (or drank) something that could have been prepared by an infected person, or touched each other in some way (such as clasping hands) which then led ingestion of the virus by a healthy person, who ended up infected.

The few actual scientific studies that have made the light of day (if you can call totally ignored by the press and buried in academic papers on obscure web sites "light of day") were done in health care settings (hospitals and nursing homes) and one also included readings from a prison. All but one were "unable to find viable virus" in any of their samples. The one that claims it did used a PCR test with a (ridiculous) 45 cycle standard that amphlifies the virus particles in a way that I might suggest is "grotesque" over kill.

What I find fascinating is that one of these studies said the highest concentration of airborne (non-viable) virus RNA they found was around the nurses' station, which may (or may not) be due to them breathing through masks saturated with covid virus particles. That's hard to say without a deeper dive, but suffice it to (safely) say that it's not because they are carrying the virus (at least not internally). It could also simply be the virus "off-gassing" from their clothes.

Which brings me to the experiments that are touted as "proving" the airborne transmissability of covid virus - which involve placing animals in cages and pumping air from one cage to the other via ducts. First of all, if there is some possibility of passing the virus from one person's exhale to another's inhale - putting them side by side and pumping air directly from the one's space to the other's for 12 hours straight, well, lets just say I'm not completely ruling out that, under certain circumstances, the virus can be inhaled in an infectuous state. But you aren't forced to breathe another's exhalings in a confined space for hours on end (except, of course, in your home where, lets face it, no one is wearing masks). Interestingly, even the ferret experiment admitted that they couldn't actually prove that the route of transmission was "airborne" virus, and that it might simply have been the case that the virus particles (fomites) traveled through the duct and landed on the uninfected ferret's fur, which was then ingested through "self grooming."

So, unless you are licking your clothes when you get home from the grocery store, the chances of you getting covid merely by passing by an infected person, even in a confined space, approaches zero. Remember that the next time one of these "maskholes" claims they "saved your life" by making you wear a mask. Always keep in mind that the highest concentration of (non-viable) airborne covid RNA the scientists found was near the nurses station, where they were all (presumably) wearing the damn masks!

Oh, and a coda - there was an announcement made back in February of a study that was going to be doing the same sort of air sampling in shopping malls, grocery stores and other (public) common areas. Not a damn word since about this study, and one at this point should wonder why - is it because it (like the medical facility studies) found exactly zero evidence of infectious material in any of their air samples? MMmmmmmmm, could be...
The chances of contracting COVID(before the vaccine) were a lot higher than you are suggesting.

We get it, you don't like the virus has done to the economy and the country. But the way to address that is by addressing the virus head on. Not dismissing it and pretending it isn't a problem.
Sorry Republicans don't understand that creating a safe environment for consumers and workers is a prerequisite for economic success.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Blabbering about "the science" that says you can get covid from breathing the air at your local supermarket. In all that time, would you think that maybe an actual "scientist" would decide to, you know, actually do experiments to discover if there is any covid in the (shared) air we breathe? Interestingly enough, there have been a few. So why do you suppose we haven't heard of any of these experiments from the mainstream media that has been pushing covid fear porn 24/7 throughout?

If you guessed "because they couldn't find any evidence of viable virus in them" - go to the head of the class. Surprise - the "science" behind masking isn't as "settled" as you are told by the techno-elites who are now in full control of every aspect of our lives, thanks to the left-wing maskscist movement. Yes, they are either that evil or stupid - your call.

The "evidence" they always point to for "proof" of "airborne" transmission is anecdotal evidence, such as choir practice or church service, where it is entirely possible the infected people either ate (or drank) something that could have been prepared by an infected person, or touched each other in some way (such as clasping hands) which then led ingestion of the virus by a healthy person, who ended up infected.

The few actual scientific studies that have made the light of day (if you can call totally ignored by the press and buried in academic papers on obscure web sites "light of day") were done in health care settings (hospitals and nursing homes) and one also included readings from a prison. All but one were "unable to find viable virus" in any of their samples. The one that claims it did used a PCR test with a (ridiculous) 45 cycle standard that amphlifies the virus particles in a way that I might suggest is "grotesque" over kill.

What I find fascinating is that one of these studies said the highest concentration of airborne (non-viable) virus RNA they found was around the nurses' station, which may (or may not) be due to them breathing through masks saturated with covid virus particles. That's hard to say without a deeper dive, but suffice it to (safely) say that it's not because they are carrying the virus (at least not internally). It could also simply be the virus "off-gassing" from their clothes.

Which brings me to the experiments that are touted as "proving" the airborne transmissability of covid virus - which involve placing animals in cages and pumping air from one cage to the other via ducts. First of all, if there is some possibility of passing the virus from one person's exhale to another's inhale - putting them side by side and pumping air directly from the one's space to the other's for 12 hours straight, well, lets just say I'm not completely ruling out that, under certain circumstances, the virus can be inhaled in an infectuous state. But you aren't forced to breathe another's exhalings in a confined space for hours on end (except, of course, in your home where, lets face it, no one is wearing masks). Interestingly, even the ferret experiment admitted that they couldn't actually prove that the route of transmission was "airborne" virus, and that it might simply have been the case that the virus particles (fomites) traveled through the duct and landed on the uninfected ferret's fur, which was then ingested through "self grooming."

So, unless you are licking your clothes when you get home from the grocery store, the chances of you getting covid merely by passing by an infected person, even in a confined space, approaches zero. Remember that the next time one of these "maskholes" claims they "saved your life" by making you wear a mask. Always keep in mind that the highest concentration of (non-viable) airborne covid RNA the scientists found was near the nurses station, where they were all (presumably) wearing the damn masks!

Oh, and a coda - there was an announcement made back in February of a study that was going to be doing the same sort of air sampling in shopping malls, grocery stores and other (public) common areas. Not a damn word since about this study, and one at this point should wonder why - is it because it (like the medical facility studies) found exactly zero evidence of infectious material in any of their air samples? MMmmmmmmm, could be...

It's the weirdest thing. It took a total of about 4 seconds to provide demonstrable proof was that respiratory droplets carry through the air with scientific study in tow. Meanwhile you write several paragraphs of nothing proving referencing nothing.


 

Bugsy McGurk

President
The chances of contracting COVID(before the vaccine) were a lot higher than you are suggesting.

We get it, you don't like the virus has done to the economy and the country. But the way to address that is by addressing the virus head on. Not dismissing it and pretending it isn't a problem.
Sorry Republicans don't understand that creating a safe environment for consumers and workers is a prerequisite for economic success.
To defeat Covid-19, sane people fought the virus.

Republicans fought the Democrats.

;-)
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Blabbering about "the science" that says you can get covid from breathing the air at your local supermarket. In all that time, would you think that maybe an actual "scientist" would decide to, you know, actually do experiments to discover if there is any covid in the (shared) air we breathe? Interestingly enough, there have been a few. So why do you suppose we haven't heard of any of these experiments from the mainstream media that has been pushing covid fear porn 24/7 throughout?

If you guessed "because they couldn't find any evidence of viable virus in them" - go to the head of the class. Surprise - the "science" behind masking isn't as "settled" as you are told by the techno-elites who are now in full control of every aspect of our lives, thanks to the left-wing maskscist movement. Yes, they are either that evil or stupid - your call.

The "evidence" they always point to for "proof" of "airborne" transmission is anecdotal evidence, such as choir practice or church service, where it is entirely possible the infected people either ate (or drank) something that could have been prepared by an infected person, or touched each other in some way (such as clasping hands) which then led ingestion of the virus by a healthy person, who ended up infected.

The few actual scientific studies that have made the light of day (if you can call totally ignored by the press and buried in academic papers on obscure web sites "light of day") were done in health care settings (hospitals and nursing homes) and one also included readings from a prison. All but one were "unable to find viable virus" in any of their samples. The one that claims it did used a PCR test with a (ridiculous) 45 cycle standard that amphlifies the virus particles in a way that I might suggest is "grotesque" over kill.

What I find fascinating is that one of these studies said the highest concentration of airborne (non-viable) virus RNA they found was around the nurses' station, which may (or may not) be due to them breathing through masks saturated with covid virus particles. That's hard to say without a deeper dive, but suffice it to (safely) say that it's not because they are carrying the virus (at least not internally). It could also simply be the virus "off-gassing" from their clothes.

Which brings me to the experiments that are touted as "proving" the airborne transmissability of covid virus - which involve placing animals in cages and pumping air from one cage to the other via ducts. First of all, if there is some possibility of passing the virus from one person's exhale to another's inhale - putting them side by side and pumping air directly from the one's space to the other's for 12 hours straight, well, lets just say I'm not completely ruling out that, under certain circumstances, the virus can be inhaled in an infectuous state. But you aren't forced to breathe another's exhalings in a confined space for hours on end (except, of course, in your home where, lets face it, no one is wearing masks). Interestingly, even the ferret experiment admitted that they couldn't actually prove that the route of transmission was "airborne" virus, and that it might simply have been the case that the virus particles (fomites) traveled through the duct and landed on the uninfected ferret's fur, which was then ingested through "self grooming."

So, unless you are licking your clothes when you get home from the grocery store, the chances of you getting covid merely by passing by an infected person, even in a confined space, approaches zero. Remember that the next time one of these "maskholes" claims they "saved your life" by making you wear a mask. Always keep in mind that the highest concentration of (non-viable) airborne covid RNA the scientists found was near the nurses station, where they were all (presumably) wearing the damn masks!

Oh, and a coda - there was an announcement made back in February of a study that was going to be doing the same sort of air sampling in shopping malls, grocery stores and other (public) common areas. Not a damn word since about this study, and one at this point should wonder why - is it because it (like the medical facility studies) found exactly zero evidence of infectious material in any of their air samples? MMmmmmmmm, could be...
Yikes. What a wordy, boring screed.

Let’s cut to the chase. You think you know better than the scientists who have said this virus is spread through the air. Alright then, correct them - how is the virus spread?
 

Drumcollie

Ending Racism with or without Hillary
Blabbering about "the science" that says you can get covid from breathing the air at your local supermarket. In all that time, would you think that maybe an actual "scientist" would decide to, you know, actually do experiments to discover if there is any covid in the (shared) air we breathe? Interestingly enough, there have been a few. So why do you suppose we haven't heard of any of these experiments from the mainstream media that has been pushing covid fear porn 24/7 throughout?

If you guessed "because they couldn't find any evidence of viable virus in them" - go to the head of the class. Surprise - the "science" behind masking isn't as "settled" as you are told by the techno-elites who are now in full control of every aspect of our lives, thanks to the left-wing maskscist movement. Yes, they are either that evil or stupid - your call.

The "evidence" they always point to for "proof" of "airborne" transmission is anecdotal evidence, such as choir practice or church service, where it is entirely possible the infected people either ate (or drank) something that could have been prepared by an infected person, or touched each other in some way (such as clasping hands) which then led ingestion of the virus by a healthy person, who ended up infected.

The few actual scientific studies that have made the light of day (if you can call totally ignored by the press and buried in academic papers on obscure web sites "light of day") were done in health care settings (hospitals and nursing homes) and one also included readings from a prison. All but one were "unable to find viable virus" in any of their samples. The one that claims it did used a PCR test with a (ridiculous) 45 cycle standard that amphlifies the virus particles in a way that I might suggest is "grotesque" over kill.

What I find fascinating is that one of these studies said the highest concentration of airborne (non-viable) virus RNA they found was around the nurses' station, which may (or may not) be due to them breathing through masks saturated with covid virus particles. That's hard to say without a deeper dive, but suffice it to (safely) say that it's not because they are carrying the virus (at least not internally). It could also simply be the virus "off-gassing" from their clothes.

Which brings me to the experiments that are touted as "proving" the airborne transmissability of covid virus - which involve placing animals in cages and pumping air from one cage to the other via ducts. First of all, if there is some possibility of passing the virus from one person's exhale to another's inhale - putting them side by side and pumping air directly from the one's space to the other's for 12 hours straight, well, lets just say I'm not completely ruling out that, under certain circumstances, the virus can be inhaled in an infectuous state. But you aren't forced to breathe another's exhalings in a confined space for hours on end (except, of course, in your home where, lets face it, no one is wearing masks). Interestingly, even the ferret experiment admitted that they couldn't actually prove that the route of transmission was "airborne" virus, and that it might simply have been the case that the virus particles (fomites) traveled through the duct and landed on the uninfected ferret's fur, which was then ingested through "self grooming."

So, unless you are licking your clothes when you get home from the grocery store, the chances of you getting covid merely by passing by an infected person, even in a confined space, approaches zero. Remember that the next time one of these "maskholes" claims they "saved your life" by making you wear a mask. Always keep in mind that the highest concentration of (non-viable) airborne covid RNA the scientists found was near the nurses station, where they were all (presumably) wearing the damn masks!

Oh, and a coda - there was an announcement made back in February of a study that was going to be doing the same sort of air sampling in shopping malls, grocery stores and other (public) common areas. Not a damn word since about this study, and one at this point should wonder why - is it because it (like the medical facility studies) found exactly zero evidence of infectious material in any of their air samples? MMmmmmmmm, could be...
Is anybody on the left going to be able to read this? Can I translate?

Blabbering about "the science" that says you can get covid from breathing the air at your local supermarket. In all that time, would you think that maybe an actual "scientist" would decide to, you know, actually do experiments to discover if there is any covid in the (shared) air we breathe? Interestingly enough, there have been a few. So why do you suppose we haven't heard of any of these experiments from the mainstream media that has been pushing covid fear porn 24/7 throughout?

If you guessed "because they couldn't find any evidence of viable virus in them" - go to the head of the class. Surprise - the "science" behind masking isn't as "settled" as you are told by the techno-elites who are now in full control of every aspect of our lives, thanks to the left-wing maskscist movement. Yes, they are either that evil or stupid - your call.

The "evidence" they always point to for "proof" of "airborne" transmission is anecdotal evidence, such as choir practice or church service, where it is entirely possible the infected people either ate (or drank) something that could have been prepared by an infected person, or touched each other in some way (such as clasping hands) which then led ingestion of the virus by a healthy person, who ended up infected.

The few actual scientific studies that have made the light of day (if you can call totally ignored by the press and buried in academic papers on obscure web sites "light of day") were done in health care settings (hospitals and nursing homes) and one also included readings from a prison. All but one were "unable to find viable virus" in any of their samples. The one that claims it did used a PCR test with a (ridiculous) 45 cycle standard that amphlifies the virus particles in a way that I might suggest is "grotesque" over kill.

What I find fascinating is that one of these studies said the highest concentration of airborne (non-viable) virus RNA they found was around the nurses' station, which may (or may not) be due to them breathing through masks saturated with covid virus particles. That's hard to say without a deeper dive, but suffice it to (safely) say that it's not because they are carrying the virus (at least not internally). It could also simply be the virus "off-gassing" from their clothes.

Which brings me to the experiments that are touted as "proving" the airborne transmissability of covid virus - which involve placing animals in cages and pumping air from one cage to the other via ducts. First of all, if there is some possibility of passing the virus from one person's exhale to another's inhale - putting them side by side and pumping air directly from the one's space to the other's for 12 hours straight, well, lets just say I'm not completely ruling out that, under certain circumstances, the virus can be inhaled in an infectuous state. But you aren't forced to breathe another's exhalings in a confined space for hours on end (except, of course, in your home where, lets face it, no one is wearing masks). Interestingly, even the ferret experiment admitted that they couldn't actually prove that the route of transmission was "airborne" virus, and that it might simply have been the case that the virus particles (fomites) traveled through the duct and landed on the uninfected ferret's fur, which was then ingested through "self grooming."

So, unless you are licking your clothes when you get home from the grocery store, the chances of you getting covid merely by passing by an infected person, even in a confined space, approaches zero. Remember that the next time one of these "maskholes" claims they "saved your life" by making you wear a mask. Always keep in mind that the highest concentration of (non-viable) airborne covid RNA the scientists found was near the nurses station, where they were all (presumably) wearing the damn masks!

Oh, and a coda - there was an announcement made back in February of a study that was going to be doing the same sort of air sampling in shopping malls, grocery stores and other (public) common areas. Not a damn word since about this study, and one at this point should wonder why - is it because it (like the medical facility studies) found exactly zero evidence of infectious material in any of their air samples? MMmmmmmmm, could be...
They won't understand you didn't use their global language so I have translated to Lib' rul-ese. There may have been posts already that sounds like they disagree, but really it's a matter of translation. Let me know if you need further translating.

Blah ber ring uh bowt "thuh sy-ants" thaht sez ewe kin git thuh beer Vy russ duh-zeez frum bree thin ayer frum yur loakle souper mar-kit.
 

Drumcollie

Ending Racism with or without Hillary
Yikes. What a wordy, boring screed.

Let’s cut to the chase. You think you know better than the scientists who have said this virus is spread through the air. Alright then, correct them - how is the virus spread?
See post number 6 was translated into lib' rul-ese.

C poast nuhm ba sicks wuz tranz -leaded intwo lib' rul-eze.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Yikes. What a wordy, boring screed.

Let’s cut to the chase. You think you know better than the scientists who have said this virus is spread through the air. Alright then, correct them - how is the virus spread?
Frankly, we don't really know (as at least some of the actual scientists in these studies admit). They all say "it needs further study." But lets face it, the ferret experiment caveat points to the "Occam's Razor" cause - that you get the virus from something you touch and then you wipe your mouth or pick your nose. Or, most importanly, share a bathroom or kitchen (or bed) with someone who has it.
 

Drumcollie

Ending Racism with or without Hillary
The chances of contracting COVID(before the vaccine) were a lot higher than you are suggesting.

We get it, you don't like the virus has done to the economy and the country. But the way to address that is by addressing the virus head on. Not dismissing it and pretending it isn't a problem.
Sorry Republicans don't understand that creating a safe environment for consumers and workers is a prerequisite for economic success.
It's the weirdest thing. It took a total of about 4 seconds to write your undemonstrable proof was that respiratory droplets carry through the air with no scientific study in tow. Meanwhile you write a paragraph of nothing proving referencing nothing.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It's the weirdest thing. It took a total of about 4 seconds to provide demonstrable proof was that respiratory droplets carry through the air with scientific study in tow. Meanwhile you write several paragraphs of nothing proving referencing nothing.


Interestingly, and, as usual, your post contains links to opinions, and not actual, you know, experiments. The first is simply a "pronouncement, and not a "study" at all. The second uses the (specious) masking vs. case trend "studies" that cherry pick the timeframe to exclude the huge spike in late fall. Neither contains a single bit of actual evidence of viable virus found in the air (and so does precisely nothing to refute my post). But your fealty to the left wing covidiocy is duly noted.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
The chances of contracting COVID(before the vaccine) were a lot higher than you are suggesting.

We get it, you don't like the virus has done to the economy and the country. But the way to address that is by addressing the virus head on. Not dismissing it and pretending it isn't a problem.
Sorry Republicans don't understand that creating a safe environment for consumers and workers is a prerequisite for economic success.
Where did I "pretend it isn't a problem?" I simply pointed out that at least one of the non-pharmeceutical interventions you idiots demanded we employ appears to have no basis in, you know, science!
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Frankly, we don't really know (as at least some of the actual scientists in these studies admit). They all say "it needs further study." But lets face it, the ferret experiment caveat points to the "Occam's Razor" cause - that you get the virus from something you touch and then you wipe your mouth or pick your nose. Or, most importanly, share a bathroom or kitchen (or bed) with someone who has it.
“We” don’t really know?

Wrong. The science is not in doubt - it’s spread through the air, primarily indoors. You just reject all the science, say you don’t know, and throw out theories debunked long ago. Why? Because your cult leader turned masks into a political issue, and you feel compelled to defend your cult leader.

Give it a rest. Move on.
 
Where did I "pretend it isn't a problem?" I simply pointed out that at least one of the non-pharmeceutical interventions you idiots demanded we employ appears to have no basis in, you know, science!
Dude, almost all of your covid are logically flawed. Presenting correlations as a Causal relationship is not science.

Covid is clearly spread through droplets in the air. Masks and social distancing clearly prevent the spread when done properly.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Dude, almost all of your covid are logically flawed. Presenting correlations as a Causal relationship is not science.

Covid is clearly spread through droplets in the air. Masks and social distancing clearly prevent the spread when done properly.
Funny, the, you know, actual scientists, who did the, you know, actual measurements of covid in the air, seem to disagree:

In December 2019, all nations learnt about the emergence of a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is a member of the β-coronavirus group. As SARS-CoV-2 has the potentiality of leading to life-threatening respiratory failure, its transmission routes need to be characterized. Yet, the possibility of airborne transmission is still debated. This study was performed to evaluate potential hospital indoor air viral quality in order to detect SARS-COV-2. For this purpose, an impinger method was used to monitor the SARS-COV-2 virus in the air. Thus, 33 samples were collected from 8 different hospital locations. The sampling time was between 50 and 60 min with a sampling flow rate of 28 L/min. Air samples were taken from 2 to 5 m away from the patients’ beds. Temperature, relative humidity, and CO2 concentration were 28, 37, and 438 ppm, respectively. The results indicated that air samples which were 2 to 5 m away from the patients’ beds were negative for the presence of the virus. According to the obtained results, it is suggested that airborne transmission may not have much effect on this pandemic.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital indoor air of COVID-19 patients’ ward with impinger method (nih.gov)
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
“We” don’t really know?

Wrong. The science is not in doubt - it’s spread through the air, primarily indoors. You just reject all the science, say you don’t know, and throw out theories debunked long ago. Why? Because your cult leader turned masks into a political issue, and you feel compelled to defend your cult leader.

Give it a rest. Move on.
In December 2019, all nations learnt about the emergence of a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is a member of the β-coronavirus group. As SARS-CoV-2 has the potentiality of leading to life-threatening respiratory failure, its transmission routes need to be characterized. Yet, the possibility of airborne transmission is still debated. This study was performed to evaluate potential hospital indoor air viral quality in order to detect SARS-COV-2. For this purpose, an impinger method was used to monitor the SARS-COV-2 virus in the air. Thus, 33 samples were collected from 8 different hospital locations. The sampling time was between 50 and 60 min with a sampling flow rate of 28 L/min. Air samples were taken from 2 to 5 m away from the patients’ beds. Temperature, relative humidity, and CO2 concentration were 28, 37, and 438 ppm, respectively. The results indicated that air samples which were 2 to 5 m away from the patients’ beds were negative for the presence of the virus. According to the obtained results, it is suggested that airborne transmission may not have much effect on this pandemic.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital indoor air of COVID-19 patients’ ward with impinger method (nih.gov)

Move over "Mr. Science," there's a new scientist in town...
 
Funny, the, you know, actual scientists, who did the, you know, actual measurements of covid in the air, seem to disagree:

In December 2019, all nations learnt about the emergence of a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is a member of the β-coronavirus group. As SARS-CoV-2 has the potentiality of leading to life-threatening respiratory failure, its transmission routes need to be characterized. Yet, the possibility of airborne transmission is still debated. This study was performed to evaluate potential hospital indoor air viral quality in order to detect SARS-COV-2. For this purpose, an impinger method was used to monitor the SARS-COV-2 virus in the air. Thus, 33 samples were collected from 8 different hospital locations. The sampling time was between 50 and 60 min with a sampling flow rate of 28 L/min. Air samples were taken from 2 to 5 m away from the patients’ beds. Temperature, relative humidity, and CO2 concentration were 28, 37, and 438 ppm, respectively. The results indicated that air samples which were 2 to 5 m away from the patients’ beds were negative for the presence of the virus. According to the obtained results, it is suggested that airborne transmission may not have much effect on this pandemic.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital indoor air of COVID-19 patients’ ward with impinger method (nih.gov)
2-5 Meters?
So you are talking about the same social distancing that has been suggested since COVID immemorial.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
2-5 Meters?
So you are talking about the same social distancing that has been suggested since COVID immemorial.
They didn't test the air that was closer, because they were testing for "spread." And, of course, found precisely none. Where in this thread have I said you should spend your entire shopping trip hugging your fellow shoppers? Their conclusion is clear:

According to the obtained results, it is suggested that airborne transmission may not have much effect on this pandemic.

I await your admission that you have been wrong about the efficacy of mask mandates (if you have an iota of integrity).
 
Top