Read on Twitter
PSA: This Medium post is gaining LOTS of traction claiming a Belgian study found 20m distancing is needed for outdoor activity.
THIS IS NOT FACTUAL! NO such study has been published! Plus, the simulation found 5ft distancing.
Plz read tread: https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08">https://medium.com/@jurgenth...
THIS IS NOT FACTUAL! NO such study has been published! Plus, the simulation found 5ft distancing.
Plz read tread: https://medium.com/@jurgenthoelen/belgian-dutch-study-why-in-times-of-covid-19-you-can-not-walk-run-bike-close-to-each-other-a5df19c77d08">https://medium.com/@jurgenth...
What is this Medium post?
This is some random guy writing a blog post on Medium in which he is posting about a Belgian newspaper report, NOT a scientific paper.
This is some random guy writing a blog post on Medium in which he is posting about a Belgian newspaper report, NOT a scientific paper.
What about the linked White Paper?
A white paper is a report, usually put out by scientists, not a peer reviewed document. This one appears to NOT even be written by the scientists, but rather another translation of the newspaper interview.
A white paper is a report, usually put out by scientists, not a peer reviewed document. This one appears to NOT even be written by the scientists, but rather another translation of the newspaper interview.
Are there papers?
No. There is no paper on arxiv (a place where researchers can post papers BEFORE they are reviewed), much less anything peer reviewed (vetted by other scientists)
I have found nothing describing the methods, results, or assumptions that went into the simulation
No. There is no paper on arxiv (a place where researchers can post papers BEFORE they are reviewed), much less anything peer reviewed (vetted by other scientists)
I have found nothing describing the methods, results, or assumptions that went into the simulation
What happened?
Researchers from civil engineering created a aerodynamics (NOT virology) simulation. They elected to discuss results with the media BEFORE publishing anything for review.
It has been picked up and spread as science of virus spread, which it is not.
Researchers from civil engineering created a aerodynamics (NOT virology) simulation. They elected to discuss results with the media BEFORE publishing anything for review.
It has been picked up and spread as science of virus spread, which it is not.
What about the the authors?
The lead author @BertBlocken is trying to combat the misreading via twitter posts, eg:
"We only indicate the equivalent of the 1.5m (5ft) distance in case people are not standing still but walking/running/cycling. This is aero work not virology."
The lead author @BertBlocken is trying to combat the misreading via twitter posts, eg:
"We only indicate the equivalent of the 1.5m (5ft) distance in case people are not standing still but walking/running/cycling. This is aero work not virology."
The authors have explained their reasons for first posting results via Twitter & in a media report, rather than publishing explanations of their study. They were likely acting in good faith & are trying to combat the misinformation, unfortunately IMO this was very irresponsible.
Similar to studies on effectiveness of masks, this one is about movement of droplets, NOT INFECTIVITY. While related, these are not the same.
You can find my explanation on the mask study in this older tweet thread: https://twitter.com/Sci_Tai/status/1246189504672694272">https://twitter.com/Sci_Tai/s...
You can find my explanation on the mask study in this older tweet thread: https://twitter.com/Sci_Tai/status/1246189504672694272">https://twitter.com/Sci_Tai/s...
