It’s all about “dose”. Why is this so difficult?
In several essays beginning nearly a year ago, I have pointed out the randomness of Covid-19 severity by geographic region, and the explanation lying in the area of aerosol spread. It is aerosol spread as the main means, that enables sense to be made of the seeming randomness of the impact of Covid-19. Spread by contact, droplets and surfaces could not possibly be as random, or be as obviously filtered by environmental factors.
I strongly recommend my essay of 2 Jan:
“Aerosol Denial is THE problem with this pandemic”
Intuitions confirmed and then some
Thus far, I have published several essays on Covid-19 and how it is obviously spreading, and the intuitive reasons that the orthodoxy is wrong on contact, droplets and surfaces being the main means of spread. I recommend to everyone, my essay of 2 Jan, “Aerosol Denial is THE problem with this pandemic”, which brought my previous arguments commencing from 28 April 2020, up to date once again. There is virtually nothing I regard as necessary to repudiate; my arguments have merely become more and more supportable with evidence as it has emerged over time.
Environmental factors strongly adding up to Covid impact explanation
Some more little-known environmental factors help to explain pandemic impact disparities. Radon gas; and solar activity.
In my essays on Covid starting in April 2020, I have repeatedly pointed out the randomly disparate impacts of Covid by geographic region, and attempted to suggest environmental factors that are responsible. The extreme politicization of this pandemic has blinded many people to anything except political explanations, which then requires them to take absurd positions not supported by the evidence. …
It happened once, and we don’t know how. What if it is ongoing?
As I started saying in April 2020, the politicization of this pandemic has blinded people to the randomness of the severity across locations and time frames. It also makes a nonsense of the orthodox hypothesis that spread is “by contact”, droplets and surfaces, and is so contagious that even the fanatical observation in rest homes, of distancing, sanitizing and PPE use, does not manage to avert transmission. Come on. …
Covid-19 could have been defeated at a fraction of the cost if the pandemic were analyzed correctly.
In fiction and real life, numerically few individuals with important insights often battle for recognition in the face of entrenched institutional incompetence. One excellent obvious example is the long battle that occurred for recognition that Malaria was transmitted via mosquito bites. Before that, Malaria killed millions and “experts” were baffled and hopeless. Today, “experts” are also baffled and hopeless in the face of Covid-19.
We are assured that lockdowns, the harder the better, are the only policy that might “save us”. Expert advice…
Revisiting a hypothesis — and adding new knowledge
I posted a hypothesis about the way Covid-19 spreads, on 28 April. On 27 June I posted a “revisiting”, showing how well my hypothesis had stood the test of time and additional news. My emphasis at the outset was on:
“…the perplexingly random outcomes “by geographic location” for this pandemic, and how the extreme politicization of the issue was blinding people to self-evident correlations. I concluded that “environment” plays a major role; both the natural environment, climate and seasons; and the built environment…”
Here are the seven concluding points of my 28…
COVID-19 Testing: the Significance of False Positives: a fascinating object lesson in statistical interpretation
I just read a fascinating exercise in harsh mathematical reality regarding COVID-19 testing, by the British Prof. Carl Heneghan. It is simple logic and yet how many people does it occur to?
There is such a thing as a “false positive” test result. An optimistic estimate is that this occurs for 0.1% of tests.
This means that if 10,000 people are tested, there will be 10 false positives.
Prof. Heneghan points out that obviously this might not matter if COVID-19 is truly rampant, and there are…
COVID-19: My Assessment 2 Months Ago Holds Good. Why is it taking the “experts” so long?
Two months ago I posted “COVID-19: A Pandemic Analyzed As A “System” — And some suggested strategies for the future”. In this essay, I noted the perplexingly random outcomes “by geographic location” for this pandemic, and how the extreme politicization of the issue was blinding people to self-evident correlations. I concluded that “environment” plays a major role; both the natural environment, climate and seasons; and the built environment.
What have I learned since then, that would cause me to change anything if I re-wrote…
My research and writing specialty is the economics of urban form and transport. I enjoy dialectical analysis of wicked problems, and discovering “unintended consequences” that are the explanation for failure of popular policies. For example, certain popular kinds of prescriptive urban planning create distortions that undermine the very intention of the planning. This is the focus of more than one of my essays.
As the COVID-19 pandemic has proceeded, I have noticed certain features that deserve more attention. …
EDIT: NOTE: the below was posted as a “response” to a comment. I don’t know why Medium’s system turned it into a “new story” in its own right.
At the time, I was unable to retrieve the original discussion thread or reinstate the comment as a “reply” rather than a “new story”. Please see the duplicate posting on the same day, on my author page, which I have noticed weeks later, has somehow also popped up. That one has more applause!
Researcher and writer on urban economic and planning issues