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).
-
-
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 -
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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 -
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
That is wrong. We have investigated in more detail from aerosol point of view. No realistic explanation otherwisehttps://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.15.20132027v1 …
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
That paper appears to literally assume your conclusion
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
Because there is no other good way to explain it. Sick person was in fixed positions in room singing, did not touch others. Fomites low likelihood per CDC. How can person spit enough droplets within 1 m if 53 people?
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
That's just a circular argument tho. "It is because it must be". Many epidemiological explanations e.g. recall bias which might explain it, which is why epidemiologists have been more cautious with inference
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @angie_rasmussen and
No it is not. It is likely to be, because it can explain it w/o contortionism. And because none of the alternative explanations are plausible.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
If you don't think that there are plausible ways in which a group of people who moved around and socialised for 2+ hours might have interacted closely enough to spread disease via droplets and fomites then I'd recommend reading up on the topic e.g.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828811/ …
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 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.