5 microns, Complicity theorists and never trust experts when they form in groups
There are reasons besides mere incompetence and intransigence that public health agencies are typically conservative about redesigning public health recommendations.
For most the scientific and professional fields appear genuinely complex, and requiring of vast amounts of time, becoming over time increasingly more and more specialised, in order that one truly understands all one can about some tiny part of the vastness of our world and the societies we have formed. “Experts” is phrase that has been flung around a lot during the last few years, and attached to anyone whom we have been informed we should trust, especially when we are required to follow some specific beliefs that are labelled science.
However, such so-called masters of their field can often be make a statement so obviously incorrect, that a mere amateur is able to identify it as clearly false, causing a possible explanation that they may actually understand little about the field. On occasion, generalists armed with a decent amount of statistical knowledge and an eye for objective critique may outperform so-called experts. In a normal society this should undermine the very possibility that a hierarchy could occur in which “experts” sat at the top with protected status. As I have spoken about previously, an outsider to the subject area can often take a more objective wider view, due not having the constraints of a taught eduction on the subject, and may be free from the natural inclination to parrot held views.
Expertise does exist, and if I ask you to perform tricks on a bike alongside my kids, you will soon realise who the experts are. You may suggest that they could fall and you may perform better, but that analogy is not accurate to the science one above. Hypotheses fail, and the researcher will adjust and continue the search. Similarly my kids may fall and will get back on and work at the problem. For my kids to make a mistake that disproves their expertise on a bike they would have to do something clearly incorrect, like try and get on the bike upside down.
Science (we will bypass medicine for now) seems to be viable as a hierarchy system, with those at the top have navigated the schooling process designed to evaluate both their skills and knowledge, but also their adherence to the process. It seeks to weed out those undeserving, and those that are able to cope receive highly specialised training, going through undergraduate, and graduate and maybe culminating in the much desired PhD., which when complete is then followed my the vast amount of publications and citations required to succeed in the publish of perish industry of academia.
Within our early education before things become specialised, we are able to gain experience and take a broad look before opting for more advanced study as we progress in specific subfields. Move away from the institutional library and you will begin to notice factions of academics split between either expostulating or justifying rival theories. You will notice that obscure literature sits on all sides of every subfield, and that challenging theories becomes near impossible alongside the vast quest to simply catching up with the tiny corner of knowledge that makes up the dominant theory. As such, many (not all) tie their colours to the mast of whatever theory sits well within the hierarchy at the specific institution, not only is it unwise to rock the boat if one wishes to progress, it is also a gigantic task to swim against the sea of held dogma.
If the expert sat at the top of the pile, say for instance Sylvain Lesné (1) author of the dominant amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, in which Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue were suggested to be the primary cause of the devastating disease. A smoking gun cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers, some which are “shockingly blatant” evidence of image tampering. The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” says Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist.. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”
Immediately the obvious damage comes in the form of wasted NIH funding, wasted thought processes throughout the field because people trusted these results to formulate their own experiments. If Lesné faked his expert status, that implicates every actor who played their part in furthering the deception and taking the field up a blind alley.
Viechtbauer et al (2) published A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies, that described a simplified method to calculate the required N for an x percentage chance of detecting a certain effect based on the proportion of participants who exhibit the effect. The paper’s example suggested that if five per cent of the participants exhibit a problem, the resultant study would need N=59 to have a 95 probability of detecting the problem. It needs to be pointed out that the required N will naturally vary if the prevalence of the effect is different to the five per cent used in the papers example.
Yet numerous papers cite Viechtbauer et al (3), and simply use N=59 irrespective of the exhibited problem they are studying, simply because that is what the Viechtbauer paper quoted. These papers, posted by academics, some actual professors, working and respected universities submitted incorrect statistical analysis and passed the editorial teams and university and the much heralded peer review system, aka the brown nose collective.
I have spoken numerous time about the replication crisis, and while the world gazes in astonishment at these experts claiming to be working together to save humanity, we have to note that are scientists (and lets not forget that the pandemic was the arena of the social scientists) are frequently guilty of publishing weak studies either fraudulently or because they have no knowledge of statistics.
Brian Wansink continue being cited in papers despite his resignations from Cornell University following his fall from grace after becoming well-known for his infamous findings: People eat more when they're served in large bowls, that hungry shoppers buy more calories, not more food, and when they sit close to the buffet at an all-you-can-eat restaurant. His work was and still is cited in media reports and he helped develop the 2010 U.S. dietary guidelines, something we were told to trust because agencies and organisations only use credible evidence.
If the feedback from the academics tasked with reviewing Wansink are the same level of experts that make the errors using N=59 within papers of the own, how can they possibly have the ability to effectively critique the work of others?
The politically-motivated mask fanatic I have been exchanging tweets with, Alexander213998177 or some other set of numbers, is scientifically inept and trusts the agencies, organisations and services to accurately report what suits the beliefs he has previously read from “trusted” sources. When the scientific validity of his held beliefs are challenged he calls out to the moral sensibilities of any vocal critics and seeks to trust the field by finding any means to protect the lies he promotes and presumably still believes.
How can the WHO be a viable source of information when it uses unvalidated claims and while knowing that trust in the scientific community, due in part to the replication crisis is now appreciated as massively fallible and with a vast amount of shortcomings. When it became clear that masks do not work, the “expert” sought to maintain the narrative and simply altered the reasoning (to protect others) and made unevidenced claims about droplets based on an arbitrary five micron fallacy. The agenda was entrenched in heavy mechanisms to protect the appearance of correctness by calling dissent to critique, and removing what was classed as COVID misinformation if it contradicted the agenda.
My scientific rationality has always been based upon;
“To err on the side of caution, to be critical and review your peers.”
Thus we have two options:
Trust everything, the experts must know. (Hope they are not one of the 59 stats crew).
Pick and choose by judging things on your own. Learn, critically analysis and ask for help and not answers.
Academic prestige means little with false expertise, and it seemingly falls not only to industry, but also political pressure. Humans fall in-line and follow what seems popular opinion (even if this is skewed by shadow banning other opinion), and in absence of evidence, anything, even regression to the mean will be taken as support for the faith. Indeed, the effects of early medicine through to the early 19th century were undoubtably tending towards negative as people were bled them to death, fed mercury and other “expert” modalities that were trusted seemingly because of a social status hierarchy. To claim doctors are “experts” and that the populace should be patient and compliant, given the often poor ratio of accurate diagnostic skills, is somewhat worrisome. One would hope that an individual would have a vested interest in their own health outcomes, and that interested parties would be able to discuss all potential health strategies openly.
When the World “Health” Organization tweeted “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.” Many of us felt that was an error due to the as yet unknown nature of transmission etc.
The “experts” from the WHO decided absence of direct evidence, otherwise known as proof, didn’t justify any possibility of airborne transmission. Yet despite hand washing, remembering not to touch your face, and social distancing, thousands fell ill on a daily basis. The ideas around how long infectious particles of various sizes could remain airborne, and how far they had the potential to travel seemed vague in the available data, but the WHO seemed to be use their position of authority to command greater respect than would even be given to well evidenced data.
The medical literature suggests almost all transmission of respiratory infections occurs through coughs or sneezes, Indeed, our twitter contact Alex often espoused the “coughs and sneezes spreads diseases” mantra. A theory that sick people cough and hack their viral and bacterial spray over a <six feet radius, leaving “droplets” that have fallen and stick to surfaces. These droplets when spread via contact via a hand that touches the face, can cause infection. The droplet rule is/was only known to be broken by both measles and tuberculosis, which are described as airborne and travel within microscopic particles, often referred to as aerosols that are able to remain suspended in the air for hours and able to travel longer distances. Thus they could be contagious via breathe, and masks would prove no benefit.
Alex picked a line of five microns as his divide between droplets and aerosols, and why wouldn’t he, with this five-millionth of a meter definition also being used by both the WHO and the CDC as the point of demarkation between droplet-aerosol, despite zero evidence to support it. The physics of how particles move through air is complicated, and particles far larger than the suggested five microns are able to stay afloat like aerosols if the heat, humidity, and other factors are suitable. Such a fraudulent claim surely means all within the medical community that perpetuate this figure, either do so by deception, or are not the experts they are claimed to be. Remember the claims, “I’d trust my doctor more than X (physicist, research scientist etc etc)”
Aside from being parroted on social media by trusting (maybe paid) people like Alex, the medical medical textbooks also state it as “fact” with no citation, and much like earlier examples the five micron mystery remained unquestioned in the background, until the pandemic hit.
C19 has no doubt created an intense debate over how transmission SARS-CoV-2 virus occurs, and three modes were initially proposed;
“Sprayborne” that hit the eyes, nostrils, or mouth, and otherwise fall from the atmosphere to the ground/objects
“Fomite” by touch, caused by either direct contact with an infected person(s), or indirectly via contact with a surfaces that have been contaminated which causes self-inoculation when the person then touches their eyes, nose, or mouth. In the UK we had the “Hands, Face, Space” campaign, and I recall family members using hankies to open doors etc. Shopping became contactless, goods were washed and “disinfected” on doorsteps.
“Airborne Transmission” which sees the inhalation of aerosols that may have remained suspended within the air for and extended period of time. (4, 5)
Organisations tasked with steering public health, including the well known go to source, the World Health Organization (WHO), declared initially that the virus was transmitted via large droplets which infected persons that touched surfaces that had been contaminated. As we saw above, on the 28th March 2020 (my daughters birthday), the WHO emphatically declared that the SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne, and that claims it was were “misinformation”. (6)
The advice however, conflicted with which was expressed by many scientists that continually suggested that airborne transmission was likely either the, or one of the significant contributors. (7, 8) For many it may seem like a casual error that occurs at the height of a pandemic panic, in which a fast response was required. However, let us not forget that in absence of evidence one would opt for the precautionary principle while research is conducted. The WHO, and other agencies such as the CDC did eventually concede that airborne transmission was indeed possible but continued suggest it was unlikely, and then eventually promoted ventilation to control the spread as late as November 2020 (9), and eventually admitting on the 30th of April 2021, that SARS-CoV-2 transmission via aerosols is important, while still not formally calling it an airborne pathogen. (10)
The CDC for example, along with many media commentators and social media mask influencers like Alex continue to use the term “respiratory droplet,” which is generally associated both with large droplets that fall to the ground quickly, and utilised as an explanation as to why they claim masks could be beneficial. (11)
Despite the small admissions made by both expert organisations, with the evidence for airborne transmission having accumulated the haphazard acceptance of the evidence of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 did not translate to the guidelines promoted within society. Many suggestions were made for the reluctance to change stance both in 2020 and to this day and the agenda continues to be promoted, with the threat of mask mandates often suggested in the press. (12)
Greenhalgh et al (13) studied both the cultural and capital perspectives, suggesting measures needed to avoid or control airborne transmission would be both expensive, that cloth and surgical type masks would not be viable and the costs associated with N95 respirators would be vast compared to cloth types, and it was felt their use would not be well accepted amongst a society new to mask usage. It was also suggested that it may be due to poor stock management early in the pandemic.
Earlier I questioned whether an earlier fraudulent act of research that leads others to promote un-evidenced and or authoritative guidelines based upon that stance are also guilty of fraud, negligence or just sloppy standards. A conceptual error can often become ingrained within the fields of not only public health, but in fields of infection control and science in general. I have spoken at length about errors in science, as noted above but also other occurrences, such as the perpetuation of 3500 kcal as being equal to a pound of fat, a mathematically inaccurate estimate that continues to be cited. (14) Membrane (pump) theory continues to be taught in schools despite Ling’s refutation of the mathematically plausibility of the energy required for the sodium pump. (15)
A dogma has been perpetuated that large droplets are the mode of transmission for respiratory diseases, and within agencies and organisations groupthink seems to have operated to defend what was seen as an outside challenge to the paradigm/agenda. As has been seen previously, an error can be allowed to persist and the prevailing models are assumed to be accurate.
We have access to a documented history of theories in which diseases was suspected to be transmitted through the air with “miasmas,” or “bad air” mentioned frequently, but a feud occurs in research between “miasmatists,” and “contagionists”. (16)
A woman of local historical importance, Florence Nightingale (1820–1910) wrote;
“What does ‘contagion’ mean? It implies the communication of disease from person to person by contact. [ …] There is no end to the absurdities connected with this doctrine. Suffice it to say that […] there is no proof […] that there is any such thing as ‘contagion’. Infection acts through the air. Poison the air breathed by individuals, and there is infection.” (17)
Her reforms took years of lobbying to be accepted.
The 1854 cholera epidemic that struck London was solved by Dr. John Snow, an outsider from the accepted public health “experts.” He died in 1866 before his ground breaking discovery was finally accepted. The rejection of water as a plausible transmission method went against a campaign to build sewers to dump raw sewage into the Thames, which at the time was the source of much of London's drinking water at.
Ignaz Semmelweis, a man I have previously spoken and written about pioneered hand-washing as being advantageous in reducing deaths from childbed fever. That his theory (and evidence) was in conflict with the established “expert” medical and scientific beliefs based on an imbalance of humors due to miasma meant he was either ignored, rejected, or ridiculed even though his data was incredibly compelling. Again Semmelweis never saw his work accepted, but the name “Semmelweis' reflex,” is used to this day to describe an age-old prejudice like tendency to reject new knowledge or evidence when it contradicts established beliefs, norms, or paradigms. Similar to that which we see Alex exhibiting on Twitter. (18)
Fast forward to the 1890s and Germany’s Carl Flügge experimentally set out to disprove the dominant transmission theory of tuberculosis, which “experts’ believed was transmitted via dust of the dried sputum that had previously landed on floors, surfaces and objects, which was then dispersed into the surrounding atmosphere. Flügge theorised that it was the fresh secretions in the atmosphere before they settled. (19)
Cornet (20) opposed Flügge’s theory, arguing that tuberculosis was transmitted via large visible droplets, yet “Flügge's droplets” is used to describe large particles that fall to the ground near infected persons despite Flügge et al using the term “droplet” in reference to all sizes of particles, including aerosols.
Charles Chapin (not the English comic actor, filmmaker, and composer) is perhaps the critical individual in which the droplet error became dominant in scientific discourse. Chapin believed contact infection to be the mode of transmission that was dominant in many diseases, stating that a lingering belief in the mode of airborne infection was his main obstacle in promoting his beliefs in contact infection.
Unlike Snow and Semmelweis who were outsiders, Chapin in 1927 was the President of the American Public Health Association, and ideas about the implausibility of airborne transmission were poorly defined, yet were widely adopted amongst public health and infectious diseases fields. In 1967 the directory of the CDC’s new epidemiology branch, Alexander Langmuir, described Chapin as “the greatest American epidemiologist” and Chapin's hypothesis while unproven became accepted as true, a situation which remained through till the beginning of the pandemic and is still being pursued by many, including Alex.
Harvard engineering professor William Wells and physician Mildred Wells started to apply experimental methodology to the airborne transmission in the 1930s and they rigorously studied the sizing of what we consider droplets versus airborne aerosols. Conceptualising “spray-borne droplets” as (>100 μm) which reach the ground before they drying, or aerosols (<100 μm) which dry before reaching the ground and commonly referred to as “droplet nuclei”. (21, 22) This adds to the mystery about why five microns (μm) the point of focus for almost all the world.
While both measles and tuberculosis were suspected by the Wellses to be airborne they predictably encountered resistance, and byy 1951, Langmuir was protecting the contact contagion theory, stating; “It remains to be proved that airborne infection is an important mode of spread of naturally occurring disease”, (23) and his work with US Defence created a renewed interest airborne infection during the cold war era, learning that that aerosols smaller than the now coveted 5 microns are able to penetrate the lung into the alveolar region, yet this work remained classified despite such weapons being banned, and Chapin’s ideas continued to dominate.
In 1962, Wells and colleagues were able to demonstrate airborne transmission of tuberculosis (TB) routing the air from a tuberculosis ward to 150 experimental animals, yet despite this evidence, “droplets” remained dominant without need for substantive proof, never mind experimental evidence. Measles and chickenpox, both extremely contagious diseases were resisted as being airborne for decades before finally becoming widely accepted during the 1980s. (24; 25)
My attention was brought to the 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic by my late friend Mae-Wan Ho (26), in which an outbreak that brought a renewed attention in airborne transmission amongst the scientific community and “superspreading” a term many had never heard of till the infamous 2020 Cheltenham festival. (27) The outbreak at Amoy Gardens in Hong Kong, occurred through both the air shaft in the building and potentially due to plumes between the tall apartment buildings which are tightly packed. (28) Yet while the WHO described SARS-CoV-1 as being airborne, droplet transmission remained dominant and “aerosol-generating procedures” (AGPs) such as intubation, and suctioning were blamed when medical staff became infected during the SARS-COV-1 outbreaks, despite evidence being very weak. (29)
As the C19 pandemic unfolded, reviews of the extant literature showed no direct evidence to support large droplets as the mode of transmission, not only in C19, but of any disease. (30) Yet the WHO continued the 1910 error by Chapin' and excluded aerosol scientists for the debate, rebuffed evidence as irrelevant, and closed down online debate via an army of fact-checkers and accounts set up to claim dissenting opinion was conspiratory and maintain the masks reduces droplets agenda. Public Health experts have been held up as unchallengeable, and it is my conclusion that their position has been fraudulent, sufficient data exists to disprove the five micron claim, yet the myth continues to be promoted.
Chen et al (30) found that aerosols up to 100 μm, depended on the environmental conditions, yet only small-size aerosols are able to penetrate into the lower respiratory tract, < 20 and < five μm for the alveolar space. The March 1951 report published by Langmuir disparaged airborne infection (23), and he cited studies looking at health hazards associated with 1940s mines and factories work. These studies indicated that the mucus within the nose and throat was exceptionally good at filtering particles > five microns. Bizarely we spent the pandemic taking samples from these sites to diagnose covid syndrome, and using mask to prevent transmission of a particle size we already have an effective barrier to, the mucosa. Smaller particles < five microns are able to enter deeps into the lungs, with Langmuir stating that to create an infectious agent that would easily infect it would best of formulated in a liquid with particles < five microns that could be aerosolised that are able to bypass the body’s main defences. Indeed, earlier research by the author suggested that the greatest risk for SARS infection occurs < 0.3 microns.
The CDC conflated the observations of Wells and Langmuirs late work, taking the five microns as a general definition of airborne spread, ignoring Wells’ threshold of 100 micron threshold to create the five micron phenomenon, which through blind repetition, became either the medical agenda or the held “expert” belief. Fraudulent or poor skills from claimed experts? Either way it is misinformation promoted by the complicity theorists.
References:
Lesné S, Koh MT, Kotilinek L, Kayed R, Glabe CG, Yang A, Gallagher M, Ashe KH. A specific amyloid-beta protein assembly in the brain impairs memory. Nature. 2006 Mar 16;440(7082):352-7. doi: 10.1038/nature04533. PMID: 16541076.
Viechtbauer W, Smits L, Kotz D, Budé L, Spigt M, Serroyen J, Crutzen R. A simple formula for the calculation of sample size in pilot studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov;68(11):1375-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.014. Epub 2015 Jun 6. PMID: 26146089.
Milton, D, K. (2020). A Rosetta Stone for Understanding Infectious Drops and Aerosols. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 9(4): 413-415. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piaa079. PMID: 32706376; PMCID: PMC7495905.
Li, Y. (2021). Basic routes of transmission of respiratory pathogens-A new proposal for transmission categorization based on respiratory spray, inhalation, and touch. Indoor air. 31(1): 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12786
World Health Organization. Twitter: FACT: COVID-19 is NOT AIRBORNE. March 28, 2020. https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898. Accessed 23rd Dec, 2022.
Dancer, S, J., Tang, J, W., Marr, L, C., Miller, S., Morawska, L., & Jimenez, J, L. (2020). Putting a balance on the aerosolization debate around SARS-CoV-2. The Journal of hospital infection. 105(3): 569–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2020.05.014
Morawska, L., & Cao, J. (2020). Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: The world should face the reality. Environment international. 139: 105730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105730
World Health Organization. Roadmap to improve and ensure good indoor ventilation in the context of COVID-19. March 2021. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240021280. Accessed 12th Jan, 2023.
World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): How is it transmitted? April 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted?fbclid=IwAR1vAg10CSquSMGj6CvC7SCa0xPuw_N3TcyavlJ0ua5Qdc9CpKhImBPBdUE. Accessed 16th Jan, 2023.
CDC. Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. May 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html. Accessed 15th Jan, 2023.
With a recent rise in Covid cases and the NHS in trouble, here’s how to end the culture war on face masks. Accessed 16th Jan, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/05/covid-cases-nhs-culture-war-face-masks
Greenhalgh, T., Ozbilgin, M., & Contandriopoulos, D. (2021). Orthodoxy, illusio, and playing the scientific game: a Bourdieusian analysis of infection control science in the COVID-19 pandemic. Wellcome open research, 6, 126. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16855.3
Wishnofsky, M. (1958). Caloric equivalents of gained or lost weight. Am J Clin Nutr. 6(5): 542-546.
Ling, G, N., & Ochsenfeld, M, M. (2008). A historically significant study that at once disproves the membrane (pump) theory and confirms that nano-protoplasm is the ultimate physical basis of life--yet so simple and low-cost that it could easily be repeated in many high school biology classrooms worldwide. Physiological chemistry and physics and medical NMR. 40: 89–113.
Polianski I, J. (2021). Airborne infection with Covid-19? A historical look at a current controversy. Microbes and infection. 23(9-10): 104851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2021.104851
Nightingale, F. (1969). Dover Publications; Mineola, NY. Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not. [Original work published 1860.]
Gupta, V, K., Saini, C., Oberoi, M., Kalra, G., & Nasir, M, I. (2020). Semmelweis Reflex: An Age-Old Prejudice. World neurosurgery. 136: e119–e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.12.012
Randall, K., Ewing, E, T., Marr, L, C., Jimenez, J, L., & Bourouiba, L. (2021). How did we get here: what are droplets and aerosols and how far do they go? A historical perspective on the transmission of respiratory infectious diseases. Interface focus. 11(6): 20210049. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0049
Cornet. G. (1889). Über Tuberculose: die Verbreitung der Tuberkelbacillen ausserhalb des Körpers [German Edition]. Hansebooks; 1889.
Wells, W, F., & Wells, M, W. (1936). Air-borne infection. JAMA. 107: 1698-1703.
Wells, W, F. (1934). ON air-borne infection*: Study II. Droplets and droplet nuclei. Am J Epidemiol. 20: 611-618.
Langmuir, A, D. (1951). The potentialities of biological warfare against man. An epidemiological appraisal. Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1896), 66(13): 387–399.
Riley, R, L., Mills, C, C., O'Grady, F., Sultan, L, U., Wittstadt, F., & Shivpuri, D, N. (1962). Infectiousness of air from a tuberculosis ward. Ultraviolet irradiation of infected air: comparative infectiousness of different patients. The American review of respiratory disease, 85, 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1164/arrd.1962.85.4.511
Leclair, J, M., Zaia, J, A., Levin, M, J., Congdon, R, G., & Goldmann, D, A. (1980). Airborne transmission of chickenpox in a hospital. The New England journal of medicine. 302(8): 450–453. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198002213020807
Ho, M-H. (2003). Bio-Terrorism & SARS. https://www.i-sis.org.uk/BioTerrorismAndSARS.php
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/cheltenham-coronavirus-super-spreader-events
Yu, I, T., Li, Y., Wong, T, W., Tam, W., Chan, A, T., Lee, J, H., Leung, D, Y., & Ho, T. (2004). Evidence of airborne transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome virus. The New England journal of medicine, 350(17), 1731–1739. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa032867
Tran, K., Cimon, K., Severn, M., Pessoa-Silva, C, L., & Conly, J. (2012). Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review. PloS one. 7(4): e35797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035797
Chen, W., Zhang, N., Wei, J., Yen, H-L., & Li, Y. (2020). Short-range airborne route dominates exposure of respiratory infection during close contact. Build Environ. 176: 106859.
