The China jogger outbreak study is not believable because it isn’t plausible. Let’s stop citing it to confirm our own biases.
It is widely known that outdoor transmission is possible, but it occurs less often and requires close, sustained contact.
@Vbuy It depends on many variables. The jogger story might be false, but outdoors transmission can be very fast. Close contact, no wind, coughs and sneezes, and of course outdoor crowding.
It's not where we should emphasize the most important measures, but caution is due, bc this is by far the most transmissible airborne virus ever known. Just saying.
@xabitron1 A study in Ireland found that outdoor transmission accounted for 0.1% of all COVID cases nationally. As you say, probably not where we want to spend our advocacy efforts.
Here’s a twitter link in which an HVAC engineer (@joeyfox85) explains why a fleeting outdoor exposure is highly unlikely to transmit COVID
That Irish Times "study" has been resoundingly debunked. I'm actually pretty shocked that Joey cited it.
I’ve seen no empirical evidence to suggest that outdoors is where we should be focusing our advocacy efforts. It’s pretty clear that most transmission happens inside crowded unmasked spaces.
@Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne Indeed. It's not an empirically based conclusion, that for sure.
Maybe it's actually impossible to conduct any study of outdoor fleeting transmission in real life.
People can believe it occurred to them, but you never can proof that, unless it were possible sequential genomic following of infected. I don't think it's possible.
@OldYesButWise @Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne The problem is that people take for granted that outdoors is utterly safe, and many have close contact for long, in conversations for instance, and end up transmitting it. Doing a selfie can mean contagion, for instance, a cough, and of course, a sneeze.
And we should be aware how much people actually cough and sneeze.
The only reasonable critique I've seen is that the paper is a bit skimpy on the details of the sequencing and the actual sequences would have been nice. Neither if these things should actually affect the results. Everything else has boiled down to "I don't like the results so look at this problem I've invented".
We had this whole debate yesterday on Twitter and it was completely shut down after people began sharing their skepticism about the study and critiqued it. Not sure what else there is to say. The study methodology is questionable, there are no data to substantiate the results, which means no conclusions can be drawn.
If people want to raise concerns about outdoor transmission, that’s fine, but this study isn’t the best research to support that.
@Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne Yes. We must, after hammering home the need of measures in indoor spaces, raise concern about human to human transmission everywhere, even outdoors.
I, of course, trust you that the Chinese study is crappy.
But that doesn't entail that we have to only focus on indoor spaces. The main focus, yes! The only focus, no.
@Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne Yeah, I don't trust that study either.
Don't take my answers as confrontational. But I would be cautious even outdoors. For many of our behaviors there are not studies backing them.
Talking about outdoors transmission is not whimsical, it's precautionary principle because, even the risk being lower, it's higher than what would be recommended.
@Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne I think you are right that we should emphasize indoors measures. But recommending caution with sars2, even outdoors, shouldn't be taken as narrowing the scope.
I wouldn't recommend you going to a park where everybody is jogging to not wear a mask, for instance.
Do we need research studies for that, or it would suffice some common sense?
@SARS2isAirborne @xabitron1 Based on what we know about the transmission of respiratory viruses, parks and other places where people are spread out are low-risk. But crowded outdoor arenas or dining outdoors with others at a table increase the risk of transmission.
I would not mask up if a jogger ran by me in a park that was sparsely populated. This is a fleeting exposure, not a sustained close contact.
@Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne That's your personal take on the matter. Only one infection in that scenarion, among, say a million contagions, could mean dozens of infected people, in chains of transmission. During an airborne pandemic, chains of transmission can be very large. That we know. You don't need studies for that, do you?
@Vbuy @SARS2isAirborne I would be very careful though, the amount of aerosols coming from a jogger is very high. I they come too close, it takes one second to transmit it. With this virus there is not need of sustained close contact to transmit it. A jogger viral load expelled can be impressive. No wind, you are done.
We face risks every time we wake up in the morning. The goal is to calculate those risks and mitigate accordingly. I worry more about the risks of driving my car on the highway than I do about passing someone on a path in a park, with wind flow and limited sustained contact in my favor.
@Vbuy I do not think your statement is correct. I have just read said raport. As far as I understand everything in it has been validated by checking the virus mutations of those infected.
On a sideline: Why o why should anyone trust the CDC on anything at this stage? They are lying openly!
@Vbuy how is it not plausible? Every variant has a more contagious. It’s airborne. Explain where the plausibility is missing.
@Cynde Please read the the thread that I attached from Twitter. It outlines the design flaws in this study, the lack of plausibility based on knowledge about airborne transmission outdoors, the lack of data on contact tracing to back up the results and conclusions, etc.
@Vbuy the study was done in China, that still does contact tracing. This updates the knowledge of airborne transmission outside. I read the study.
@Cynde “They successfully contact traced 20496 people in the park in a short period. You can believe this if you like.” -@joeyfox85
Plus the study provided no data. You can’t make an empirical claim without providing the data. Where’s the data?
Yes, I believe that China’s capacity and commitment to contact tracing is the only way this could have been accomplished.
@Cynde Then they need to link to the data used in the analysis. That’s the way publishing research results work.
@Vbuy I mean, I read the actual study and the data and most people will not read that kind of dense data. I don’t see what’s missing. Maybe you’re reading summaries and not the actual white paper.
@Vbuy what does surprise me though, is the anger underlying your responses. I’m immunocompromised and have been at home since March 2020 and I’m not as angry as you are. Can you explain?
@Vbuy I think it's important you raise this to the fore, that the study is flawed. Very flawed indeed.
@Vbuy Don't just cite sources because they're "plausible". Before you cite a source, check if it's reputable, i.e. from actual scientists with actual degrees, in a reputable journal, and preferably if the study is peer reviewed. Your first warning bell should NOT be that something is merely hard to believe.
Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct! Thank you. Mastodon.cloud is maintained by Sujitech, LLC.