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.
-
-
Assuming droplets/fomites are primary source of spread - how do epi’s account for seeming high difference of transmissibility between outdoors and indoors settings? Esp. considering large scale crowds such as protests (some southern crowds apparently had abysmal mask complice?)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I tend to agree with Dylan below, having been in choirs. There just isn't as much intermingling as you would think for it to be close contact. You tend to hang out with the couple of people next to you. https://twitter.com/dylanhmorris/status/1260656040468602880?s=19 …
This Tweet is unavailable. -
Every choir I've been in has been a social setting. People greet, catch up, have quiet chats while everyone gets their music together. It's not a crowd of automatons that enters and leaves on cue!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
They did NOT move aroudn and socialize for 2 hrs. They entered for 10 min. Knew about distancing, no shake hands. Sang in fixed positions, 10 min break. We know the positions, nobody within 2 m range of droplets from index patient!
-
Now, can you point out an outbreak we can definitively attribute to fomites or ballistic droplets? I haven't seen any. They generally conclude "droplets and fomites" without evidence that aerosols were not important. That's unscientific, evidence of deeply ingrained bias
- 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.
