Embed Notice

I have chosen to die on this hill, and so I will continue. I was going to ignore this new opinion piece in The Lancet, but, I can't help myself in the end.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00244-7/fulltext

The first time I read it I gave up on the first paragraph.

Read this carefully:

"The report proposes that use of the unqualified terms airborne and airborne transmission in the context of infectious disease transmission should be avoided."

Followed by:

"It introduces new terms matched to specific definitions, including “through-the-air transmission”, “infectious respiratory particles”, “airborne transmission/inhalation”, “direct deposition”, “semi-ballistic”, and “puff cloud”. "

What this, literally, says is that we should replace "airborne transmission" with "airborne transmission/inhalation." This is what everyone is fighting over.

After it came across my timeline for the 20th time I decided I'd give the rest a read.

Paragraph two. Two examples of airborne being used in papers in the last 127 years to show that there was no confusion regarding the term "airborne"?

Compare that to the extensive writing of Prof. Jimenez on the history of the droplet dogma and decide if you think everyone understands this.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354772435_Echoes_Through_Time_The_Historical_Origins_of_the_Droplet_Dogma_and_its_Role_in_the_Misidentification_of_Airborne_Respiratory_Infection_Transmission

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0049

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ina.13070

Paragraph 3. Finally something we agree on. The WHO botched the last 4 years horribly.

The next paragraph is where this falls off the rails for me.

"This new WHO report appears to assume that because some infectious disease experts believe that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is airborne only “situationally” (ie, under unusual conditions),1"

I, for one, read this and went directly to the report itself because I was appalled. Guess what? The quoted word, "situationally", never once appears in the document, which is cited. Nor does "under unusual conditions." So now it's just quoting things that don't exist and citing them.

To be clear, it's citing a document titled "Global technical consultation report
on proposed terminology
for pathogens that transmit
through the air" not the document actually about COVID(https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/376346/9789240090576-eng.pdf), while complaining about COVID.

I don't see a need to continue.

Mark my word. The CDC delayed their response to this document, whether or not they would go along and declare COVID airborne, because people are making it "controversial" and giving them cover to.