Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Look, I'm not a scientist, so I cannot ascertain how sound the research in that document is. Correlation and causation are obviously not the same thing. Just had this pop up on linkedin and thought it was worth mentioning.

No- as @pascalo states quite well- Correlation and Causation are not the same.
The conclusion of the paper is:

1. In China there was an epidemic
   
2. In China there was a large amount of particulate matter
   
3. Therefore there MIGHT be a link.
   
   

They cite papers in their initial paragraph thusly:
Citation 1/2:

To date, several scientific studies focused on viruses diffusion among humans demonstrated
that increased incidence of infection is related to airborne particulate matter (PM)
concentration levels [1,2]

Citation 1 states( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08958370701665434)

The studies mentioned within this review demonstrate how exposure to common air pollutants can alter host immunity to respiratory viral infections.

i.e.- Pollution is bad for lung health.

Citation 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539435
A study to assess the ability of aersolised fecal matter (designated as PM2.5 -finer than 2.5 micrometers [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates]) to carry avian influenza virus (AIV) subtype H10N
This showed that fecal matter that had been artificially 'spiked' with the virus did aerosolise the virus and was a 'worst outcome' method of spread amongst poulty.

Note 1: PM10 was subsequently utilised as the original study's particulate size of measuring. (10 micrometers and smaller)

So from the first 2 citations- we have a misinterpretation of the findings, and a change of particulate size.

Citation 3 in the text:

It is known that PM fractions (e.g., PM2.5 and PM10) serve as carrier

for several chemical and biologic pollutants, viruses included.

Citation 3 in actuality (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
is a review of various biological particulates.
Its section on viruses states:

Viruses are almost completely inactivated in aerosols in the span of 1 d under such conditions.

'Conditions' being:

changes in temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, etc.

{{{It also shows the equation for virus inactivation as an interesting side note:

C/C0 = e ^-kt
Here C is the concentration of viable viruses at the time t, C 0 is the initial concentration of viable viruses and k is the rate coefficient of inactivation. Even for the most stable viruses, k is typically of the order of 0.01 min−1, corresponding to an effective half-life of about one hour}}}

Anyways
We've reached Citation 3 and none of them fully support what is being stated in the paper.

The remainder of the citations are CORRELATION studies between pollution and viral infections. And as above- increased polution= worse lungs= increased infection.

Essentially-the true conclusion of this paper is very simple:

1. there was a Viral epidemic in China
   
2. There was (is) a large amount of air pollution in China