Fam....it's not peer reviewed.
Fred.
Breh
@hex just to be sure what are you actually contesting?
1. That humans emit viruses into their environment from their mouth / nose?
2. That those emissions contains viruses in droplet particle form?
3. That SARS-CoV-2 is emitted in droplet particle form?
4. That some of the SARS-CoV-2 droplets are aerosols?
5. That those SARS-CoV-2 aerosols do not drop straight to the ground?
6. That those SARS-CoV-2 aerosols remain in the air for at least 30 mins?
7. That those SARS-CoV-2 aerosols are not / cannot be inhaled?
8. That those SARS-CoV-2 aerosols are not a transmission vector even if inhaled?
9. Something else?
Furthermore at which point do these statements fall so far outside of the real of possibility that they rule out reasonable pre-emptive action.
-
By way of parallel should another Sars like virus emerge we might (even in the absence of sufficient evidence)
reasonably take
reasonable pre-emptive measures based on the assumption that it is transmitted by droplet, based on its structural similarity to other Sars viruses and the mechanics of respiratory viral transmission.
You will note that due the lack of case history many of the actions which have been taken thus far by TPTB have been based on reasonable inferences drawn from related viruses. The case spread models used by Fauci, Imperial and Oxford are some examples of this.
We do this because an informed (but possibly less than perfect) guess is much more likely to be a better approximate than a random stab in the dark. These then serve as bootstrapped starting points which are continuously revised as more data emerges.
This all quite aside from what appears to be your chief point of consternation that studies are not peer reviewed.
Peer review is no arbiter of correctness. Critical criteria are more likely to be who the originators and reviewers were. If someone were to dig out a peer reviewed study, that it and of itself would not be a determinant of whether it was correct or not. In short a non-peer reviewed multi-participant / team study from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Harvard is more likely to be correct than one from joe-bloggs around the corner that has been reviewed by less leading lights.
So I write all of that to say this...
1. In the absence of peer-reviewed studies it is often prudent to take preemptive measures (including models, policies, etc) as long as those measures in and of themselves have reasonable downsides and correspondingly larger upsides.
2. Peer-review is important but actions such as in 1. are often required in-situ even as we wait for more accurate data
3. Virology when met with a novel virus applies more than just a series of stabs in the dark. Inferences are regularly drawn about novel viral behavior based on pre-existing literature and observed similarities.
Now if someone has time they can continue the hunt for a suitable per-reviewed study...
feels like someone scratching the inside of my throat at times making me cough other than that I feel great...
lucky there's nothing else
, my morale would go up.
UK Chief Expert said we're tracking France very closely. The picture could be a lot worse than we think it is
