The purpose of this blog is not to launch character assassinations. However, there is one figure here in the Netherlands who, in my opinion, is capitalising on his fame and expertise in one area in order to influence opinions in another.

We all have our beliefs about the transmission of the corona virus. In a free society, it is right that opinions can be expressed openly. However, this does open one up to the examination of credentials.

When you have a doctorate in one field, it does not make you an authority in other fields. The person in question has done no more than what I would term literature research on the subject of the transmission of the corona virus. His field of expertise is social geography and he has particularly made his name in the area of opinion polls. He is up in arms at the moment because a leading social media site for professionals has blocked his profile and thus his posts about the results of his literature research.

Since opinion polls can be regarded as a science in itself, simple literature research in another field threatens to undermine his credibility. When you collect information and publish the results of other people’s research, there is an inherent risk of bias. Not only have you selected which results to highlight, there is no litmus test as to when you have found sufficient evidence to support a particular point of view.

Scientists do research and publish peer-reviewed results. Similar studies might yield different results, but the devil will be in the detail. The parameters of the research have to be taken into account. Non-experts, be they government ministers or private individuals, have to judge for themselves which results support a particular strategy.

This man’s focus at the moment is on the lack of attention to ventilation and the role aerosols (tiny droplets in the air) play in the transmission of the corona virus. In my opinion, the greatest risk of becoming infected is indeed coming into contact with exhaled air from an infected person. Second to that is physical contact between people or surfaces where virus particles have been left behind.

A crowded pub or bar cannot be regarded as a ‘safe’ place to be. ‘Ventilation’ is not in itself the solution. For example, the wrong kind of airflow could end up blowing virus particles into other people’s faces, rather than letting them settle. Logic suggests that only ventilation from below would be safe, and then only if the upper layers of air can be evacuated efficiently. I really do not think it is possible to turn pubs and bars into wind tunnels!

Social distancing may be a pain, especially when not all those around us practise it. My guess is that traditional wisdom for avoiding cold and flu infections helps enormously. If you don’t want to catch the flu, you do not get up close and personal with someone who has the flu at that moment.

A flu sufferer is more easily identifiable. It has apparently been sufficiently demonstrated that you can have Covid-19 and be able to pass it on without yourself actually exhibiting any symptoms. With that in mind, we have little choice than to regard everybody we come into contact with as a potential carrier.

A full lockdown quickly cripples the economy; we have found that out already. A balance has to be struck between the freedom to move around and do our jobs, and the need to stop the spread of this virus in its tracks.

To my mind, any suggestion that social distancing is useless is ignoring plain common sense. Suggesting it is useless because other measures are not being implemented is an intellectual argument which does not address the basic benefits of social distancing in general.

‘Throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ comes to mind here.

In every time of crisis, opinions will be divided on the efficacy (and ethics) of the path chosen. Yesterday, the end of the second world war was commemorated, marking the end of a week where the two nuclear bombs used on Japan in August 1945 were remembered. Then, as now, you will find opposing opinions as to whether those bombs should have been used. Did they hasten the end of the war in the Far East? Yes. Was that the right way to go? That depends on who you ask. Did something need to be done to halt the advance of the Japanese? I think so – and I wasn’t even born until 10 years after the war ended.

Opinions in themselves do not kill. ‘Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war’ is a quote from Winston Churchill in 1954. Potentially misleading opinions, based on biased research, and capitalising on personal celebrity status is, however, non-helpful, to say the least.