GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:As for the other "funny", it is his specialty to take the others for idiots.
Don't take your case for a generality!
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:As for the other "funny", it is his specialty to take the others for idiots.
only on the assumption that any vaccine actually reduces the catching of covid; Unprovable and currently unproven, so there are so many different cases.But yes, there will be consequences: we will be much less likely to catch COVID, and if so, we will be much less likely to have dramatic consequences.
Janic wrote:Exnihiloest » 13/06/21, 19:54only on the assumption that any vaccine actually reduces the catching of covid; Unprovable and currently unproven, so there are so many different cases.But yes, there will be consequences: we will risk much less catch COVID, and if so we will risk much less dramatic consequences
But if you believe in it, it is no longer science, but faith or credulity according to your choice.
No relation to what the article says (interesting however), which does not speak of the effectiveness of masks, but of aerosols and smokersAdrien (ex-nico239) wrote:With an aerosolized virus other than an FFP3 and again with the adequate filter changed regularly and a "scientific" manipulation of the mask, all the masks used are only a decoration or at best a silly reminder. https://www.numerama.com/sciences/71804 ... utres.html
As soon as we breathe, we emit aerosols. And, we emit even more of it when we talk, laugh, sing, strain, or even… smoke. It is also possible, in order to better understand aerosols, to make an analogy with cigarette smoke: the aerosol moves in the air and is concentrated in closed rooms. It can, moreover, move about ten meters and it penetrates deeply into the lungs.
To put it another way, when we see the cigarette smoke that escapes from the mouth of a smoker, we partially visualize the aerosols that they emit when smoking, aerosols that carry with them Sars-CoV-2, if the person is positive.
Therefore, the potential risk of being in the same room as or near a person who smokes in an outdoor location is more understandable. As Charlotte Jacquemot, Dre in interventional neuropsychology and member of the Adios Corona collective, explains: “ A person who smokes is someone who takes off their mask and emits more aerosols than if they were just talking normally or eating. "Dr. Corinne Depagne goes in the same direction:" When you exhale smoke, the exhalation is stronger and faster. So, if the person is positive for Covid-19, the aerosols they emit are more loaded with Sars-CoV-2 and the risk of transmission is greater. "
Adrien (ex-nico239) wrote:Why pretend you don't understand, that doesn't sound like you ....
What I understand is that you answer with another copy / paste taken out of its context without citing the source. https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/coronav ... vue-hausseAdrien (ex-nico239) wrote:Why pretend you don't understand, that doesn't sound like you ....
And what about cigarette smoke or the vapor emitted by electronic cigarettes? Can it contribute to the spread of the virus? “The aerosols diffused with cigarette smoke behave in a similar way to the aerosols of coronavirus that we exhale,” describes Antoine Flahault. If the person emitting the smoke is contaminated, then the aerosols in that cloud will be too. However, the risk is not greater than with a non-smoker, the only difference being that you can see the cloud moving. ”
stupid one more time! The two articles say the same thing with the addition of smoke in one. and are no more, no less, of a scientific nature. Science only observing already existing facts!What I understand is that you answer with another copy / paste taken out of its context without citing the source. https://www.letemps.ch/sciences/coronav ... sight-rise
Incoherent but that's enough to amuse Guy on the way back.
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 308 guests