(Just trying to understand the skepticism towards the aerosol route. I don't see any good arguments against aerosols in the debate)
-
-
People in different fields are holding onto old beliefs. It happens. They say "There is no evidence x happens" and then you ask, "Well, has anyone ever tried to measure it?" and then they respond..."Well, no". Then of course there is no evidence!
3 replies 3 retweets 17 likes -
I'm not sure nobody has never tried to measure infectious virus from air ducts. This is a problem with reporting results, but if they did try to do a plaque assay to quantify infectious virus, they didn't say so.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @kprather88 and
The other issue with this is that nobody has adequately measured minimum infectious dose by different routes. We do know that virus loses infectivity while in the environment, including in small particle aerosols.
4 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I agree that many things need to be studied. But, to dismiss aerosol transmission due to what is basically your disagreement over a size cut between droplets and aerosols is sending a mixed message to the public that hurts efforts to get proper controls in place to save lives.
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
I haven't dismissed aerosol transmission, if you're talking about smaller droplets that are larger than 5 microns but can remain suspended in the air for longer periods of time. I agree that the terminology needs rethinking because of the very issue of sending mixed messages.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I am an aerosol scientist. There is a continuum of sizes--and they are changing due to evaporation/condensation as they float in the air. When we talk about "aerosol transmission", we are talking about particles < 10 microns (and even larger ones that can shrink to this size).
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
It is a misunderstanding of this continuum (even how scientists discuss it with each other) that has contributed to this problem of making aerosols vs inhaled droplets a false dichotomy, and the miscommunications that inevitably result. The terms/discussion needs to change.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @kprather88 and
I don't know any virologists who think inhaled smaller "droplets" (too big to be aerosols but much smaller than large droplets) aren't drivers of transmission. The epi evidence is pretty clear about that. There's less epidemiological evidence to support travel through air ducts.
3 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @kprather88 and
I think this is where the epidemiological evidence really is important. If you view particle size purely from a theoretical perspective in a vacuum, it may seem likely that the virus should spread often through air ducts and the like But it doesn't, really
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
We can theorise about how the virus might spread - and investigate the most minute of droplets/aerosols in the process - but ultimately if it doesn't match the actual evidence of transmission from contact tracing then I'm not convinced 
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
We have investigated the Skagit choir, 1 person gave it to 53 despite limited contact. Nearly impossible to explain except by aerosols. Similar for other superspreading events
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
That's not true, actually. As both the CDC and WHO have pointed out, it is perfectly plausible that fomite and droplet spread could've caused that outbreak
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.