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 -
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 -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @GidMK @jljcolorado and
Lazarus Long Retweeted
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 …
Lazarus Long added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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!
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @LazarusLong13 and
Some social interaction. Two periods of 10 min. How much "close contact" with 53 ppl in that time? Most people talk to a few friends, don't go around greeting all 53. No hand shaking. - So I can give you 5-10 cases from fomites and droplets. Just no way to explain 53 out of 60.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jljcolorado @GidMK and
No real-world event will be 100% certain - But there are many, aerosols likely in many of them (call center, restaurant, bus cases...) - You say aerosols can't be ruled out. I say likely - So precautionary principle --> protect just in case. If not, more cases -> more PPE needed
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.