what disturbed me most was how hard so many news outlets worked to âboth sidesâ the bleach thing.
A workable vaccine against a disease thatâs been around so big and so long that we have genetic mutations to try and cope with it, is big.
Is there a list somewhere? That looks like Henning Wehn in the bottom corner, if so Iâll be pretty disappointed.
ETA: Apparently thatâs someone named Richy MĂŒller.
I really donât understand the resistance to the idea.
The bad news is that to be fully effective you need to vaccinate the mosquitoes.
Doesnât look like him in the still to me. He lives in the UK, I would be surprised that he would opine about German lockdowns.
Unfortunately, most Germans look alike to me.
Heâs lives in the UK, I would be surprised that he would opine about German lockdowns.
Thatâs what I thought, and why I asked if there was a list.
Iâm stunned that the WHO has pushed back against saying that. For some reason, I thought the airborne part was common knowledge since, what, last summer? For months, Iâve been trying to figure out why TV shows taped in Europe last year showed groups of people wearing masks outside, and taking them off inside. This explains it. 
I was finally able to secure appointments for me and my kid for the first dose on this coming Tuesday; yay.
If itâs fine drifting aerosol particles, those sneeze guards for frontline and office workers are so much empty theater, along with surface disinfecting. Like that HVAC standards group I posted a little while back, itâs all about air exchange and filtering.
I was prepared to accept it March last year with that report of a Chinese intercity bus running on AC. It didnât explain some oddities, but as an incident report it was superb, using state surveillance and contact tracing as a force for good. Too bad some bureaucrat pulled it.
(A missing key datum: No one wearing masks was infected, but which masks and where were they sitting?)
Yay!Â
The Hunan bus study was retracted, we probably shouldnât be repeating it here.
(ETA: link.)
Retracted by whom and why? It was a perfectly good incident report.
On March 10, the journal posted a âstatement of retractionâ signed by its editorial department, without offering any reasons.
Oh well, nothing to see then.
By the journal where it was reported. I think we discussed it here at the time (how else would I know about it?) Hereâs some more, at retraction watch:
No. I really think we should. Because there seems to be a goddamned wall against acknowledging the accumulating evidence.
We should be repeating studies that are retracted by the journals where they are published? And which presumably know more about the incident than we do? Thatâs a pretty dangerous path to walk down.
