Now that the calf has drowned (including Martin Keulmans’ reaction)

Read the full article: Now that the calf has drowned (including Martin Keulmans’ reaction)

reading time: 4 Minutes

October 9, 2020

Jan 21 2021

4 November 2022

Martin Keulmans’ reaction

After this article was published, Martin Keulmans wrote this response:

“Come on, unsuspecting readers, just a comment, maybe it’ll save me a lot of time. What Morris didn’t touch is that we’re now five more variables — and air dispersal has actually increased (probably because you need a smaller dose of virus to get infected). At that time ( 1st / 2nd wave) We had a variant sometimes sprayed as well, but less eagerly, especially in special circumstances (such as at apres-ski bar Kitzloch, choirs in Seattle and Herdy, etc.) As early as March 2020, I wrote an article Big on this in the newspaper, it featured prominently on the front page on Saturday.https://www.volkskrant.nl/t…

The penny that Morris doesn’t want to drop is that it’s never either – or, but always – and. Virus transmission occurs in a complex parameter space, and in addition to ventilation/humidity, the infectivity variable, virus shedding of infection, stage of infection, type of activity and many other factors are also crucial. Gradually, the aerosol dispersal factor became more important (especially from Delta!) However, rightly so, the concern became aeration. However, in the first stage, this was less of a problem: patients were treated, for example, without an airlock in a hospital, without a major outbreak of the disease in the hospital.

The only person time and time again to settle this in the apparent paradox of “aerosol vs. droplets” is Morris himself: these are graduated measures of risk. Also, Morris is not a “discoverer” of super scattering or pneumatic transmission, or anything like that. In 2002 I covered the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong (among other things): there, too, it became abundantly clear that SARS viruses can sometimes spread through aerosols (the most interesting case being the case of super-spreading through vents in the Amoy Gardens apartment complex) . In 2005, an American group wrote a very useful review article on super-spreading events, in which SARS viruses emerged as viruses with the most extreme behavior in this regard: https://www.nature.com/arti…

Unnecessary: ​​Of course I build what I write, tweet and demand the latest professional literature and on interviews with researchers who actually map it out using lab animals, field studies, and epidemiological/communication source analyses. Fortunately, the insight is advancing.”

This reaction is Martin Keulmans to the fullest. Not only does it contain a – crucial – error in the facts, but it is also sad and sometimes laughable in terms of aspects of the content. This is my response:

“What a flimsy answer. At first they weren’t sprays, but with modern, more contagious variants they were. That you dare write it down, while also saying that you followed the SARS 1 outbreak in 2002. The literature on the SARS 1 outbreak was further confirmation of the virus spreading through the air. I wrote about it on April 25, 2020. Because what you apparently didn’t read or remember is a critical finding from research in 2004/2005:

During the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong and Singapore, large-scale events (SSEs) were responsible for more than 70% of the virus’ spread.

The right date is very important, just like the good dates. And this is where you make a huge mistake. Because you wrote this article about superspreading events not in March 2020, but on May 29, 2020, seven weeks after I wrote extensively about them. Information that you have actively shared with de Volkskrant.
My articles on those aerosols and events were super prevalent. The latter was seen as the dominant driver of the spread of the virus (many people at once). So also in Hong Kong in 2002-2003!

And on April 10, 2020, when I had already written several articles on this topic, Martin replied: “We’ve also been bombarded by Morris with this story for weeks. The virologists we spoke to about this still see hurdles of hope and doubts“.
Immediately after his article on May 29, 2020, I wrote on Twitter that his article was my information in his direction, which he ignored.
In response, he posted a tweet in which he said:7 weeks before that it wasn’t news and I’m making a whole song.”

But now the big boy is playing with it and also coming out with a laughable description that the first variant of the virus was less up in the air. Know that in May 2020, Germany’s Drosten already said that the majority of infections were through the air.
But no, Keulemans posted another tweet on January 21, 2021, seven months later, that it was clear nonsense that the virus had circulated through the air.. Does not make sense. January 21, 2021.

You know what’s bad about you Martin, the arrogant way you always treat people with different points of view. Always with contempt, always from above.
And if you get really wet, as with an airborne virus, like now, you don’t admit it, but you hide behind the variables.

In March 2020, I actually read about the SARS-1 outbreak in Hong Kong and about the super-spreading events in 2002. It is precisely for this reason that I wrote in April about the fact that if the SARS-1 virus had circulated in the air and the super-spreading events played an important role in that This will also be the case with SARS 2.
So how could you have actually followed what happened there in 2002 that you wrote in early 2021 that it was plain nonsense that the virus was transmitted through the air? Or have you come up with a lame story that the virus was airborne in 2002, but not or barely in 2020 again. Because what proof do you have that you weren’t/much less flying in 2020 than you are now. Not even one.

Yet your pride gets in your way, and your way of treating others with contempt. Because with such a mindset, you can’t realize that in 2020 there was already a significant degree of spread through the air, and that you only became convinced of that later. Good. But say so generously.
Because one of the reasons you didn’t say it in 2020 and early 2021 was because Van Dissel was still in denial of the dominant aerosol and you were the talking Van Dissel doll from her belly.