Finally! Why science took so long to accurately explain how COVID-19 spreads.

This New York Times article shows how the W.H.O., the CDC and other scientists took so long to get it right.

The first article written by a scientist that a layman can understand without any political undertones.

Kudos go to Dr. Zeynep Tufekciz, a contributing New York Times opinion writer for revealing the snafus about how the World Health Organization and a vast array of “experts” got it wrong when they issued sweeping, far over-reaching demands that they said were essential (and undebatable for some) for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Only a week ago did the W.H.O. and the Centers for Disease Control finally get around to saying what other scientists long have argued: That the virus is spread not only by droplets, but also by aerosols.

Big deal?

I’ll let Tufekciz explain it in the opening paragraphs of her article:

A few sentences have shaken a century of science.

A week ago, more than a year after the World Health Organization declared that we face a pandemic, a page on its website titled “Coronavirus Disease (Covid-19): How Is It Transmitted?” got a seemingly small update.

The agency’s response to that question had been that “current evidence suggests that the main way the virus spreads is by respiratory droplets” — which are expelled from the mouth and quickly fall to the ground — “among people who are in close contact with each other.”The revised response still emphasizes transmission in close contact but now says it may be via aerosols — smaller respiratory particles that can float — as well as droplets. It also adds a reason the virus can also be transmitted “in poorly ventilated and/or crowded indoor settings,” saying this is because “aerosols remain suspended in the air or travel farther than 1 meter.”

The change didn’t get a lot of attention. There was no news conference, no big announcement.

Then, on Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also updated its guidance on Covid-19, clearly saying that inhalation of these smaller particles is a key way the virus is transmitted, even at close range, and put it on top of its list of how the disease spreads.

There was no news conference by the C.D.C. either.

The implications, as Tufekciz goes on, is eye-opening. It should be a lesson for elected and non-elected government officials long, need to question the demands imposed on them by experts.

It’s also a valuable lesson against assuming that “consensus” equals good science. About how scientific understanding develops and moves forward. About how good science requires an open mind.

Some scientists might argue with this article and that’s fine. That’s part of science. The truth about the pandemic is that everyone began this journey with a blank slate. The virus is called “novel” for a reason.

But there is no overlooking the unprecedented and historic response: The analysis of the virus and the miraculous creation of a vaccine to fight it. That’s not the only miracle: the logistics for distributing the vaccine were mind-boggling.

So praise or blame whomever you want for whatever reason you want. But patiently read this informative article for a better understanding of this complex issue.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: COVID-19

Comments

Leave a comment
  • You have several links, but I don't think any is to the article you discuss.

  • Here is the link to the article you mentioned:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/opinion/coronavirus-airborne-transmission.html

    The article illustrates the frequently overlooked fact that good science is not just a body of knowledge, but also a process of learning.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Thank you. My oversight.

  • The WHO and CDC tossed out a century's worth of epidemiology and pandemic response in March 2020 for the "consensus" "science" that eminated in China, which called for social distancing, wearing ineffective masks, and placing people under house arrest. Opposition voices from heavily credentialed medical people were there right from the start, but were ignored by the WHO, which is beholding to China and its funding. As for the CDC ignoring all the past history of pandemic response one can only conjecture. And that conjecture takes a dark turn suggesting more than just "bumbling."

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    The writer of this op ed is critical of some scientists on the positions they took on the droplet vs. aerosol question, but she did not push the conspiracy claptrap you add. I'm not sure where that is coming from. Qanon? Tucker Carlson?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Is it conspiracy that the WHO is recipient of large donations from China? No. Is it conspiracy that the WHO covered up the immediate release of information on the WuFlu on the request and behest of China? No. Is it conspiracy that the WHO and then the CDC threw out 100 years of pandemic science to follow the "China" model? No. Is it conspiracy that the virus that causes Covid is 3000 times smaller than the fibers in an N95 mask? No. Is it conspiracy that epidemiologists were advising early on that air circulation was more important than standing on your stupid spot six feet from others? No. I don't know if you get your facts from CNN alone or from the belchcifirous BlueAnon.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    As usual, much bluster. No links.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    As usual, avoiding the substance and the facts as stated.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    As stated where?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Above.

  • So the virus is transmitted both by droplets and aerosols. The experts were not wrong about the droplets and the precautions needed to protect oneself from them. The transmission by aerosols did not invalidate anything; it only meant that the guidelines had to be modified. Science does not consist of inerrant pronouncements; it consists, sometimes, of the best conclusions that can be drawn from the application of the scientific method at the moment.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    The article didn't say that the droplets explanation was invalidated.

    I'm happy that you agree with me that science is not inerrant.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: