“Willfully ignorant”? Those are strong words. I think one of the reasons why there hasn’t been a more open discourse across disciplines about the nuances of this topic is because you’ve been so aggressive and disrespectful.
-
-
Replying to @jakescottMD @jljcolorado and
Seconded. I'd say it's "willfully ignorant," as well as incredibly disrespectful, for people who specialize in air pollution to be setting standards involving the culture of pathogens they have never worked with and probably never thought about until a couple months ago.
4 replies 8 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @jakescottMD and
I'm also really sick of hearing from physicists & engineers that I need to be aware that this pandemic is killing people. Because not only am I well aware of that both as a virologist & as a person who has had family members profoundly affected by COVID, so has EVERYONE at WHO.
3 replies 12 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @jakescottMD and
And I am sick of hearing people who have never studied the transport of particles through the air, and who keep making enormous error after enormous error (e.g. droplets at 5 um) dismiss the experts in that field.
7 replies 15 retweets 113 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
Well I'm sick of people who've never studied epidemiology misunderstanding basic elements of the discipline (I.e. potential sources of bias in retrospective studies...). Just seems very odd and silly tbh
4 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jljcolorado and
Can epidemiologists give an expert opinion of aerosols without knowing about them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Iamgoingtosleep @jljcolorado and
That depends. Can physical scientists give an expert opinion on disease transmission without knowing about infectious diseases?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jljcolorado and
In the real-life, the best tool we have now to fight against transmission is FAQ-aerosols document, written by them. It is not epidemiologist vs physics, what we are saying is that it is necessary a multidisciplinary scientific communication.
Can you explain "it depends"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Iamgoingtosleep @jljcolorado and
Odd that such a focus on multidisciplinary thought would exclude leading experts in the fields of viral transmission and human disease
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @jljcolorado and
I do not understand why you feel excluded, instead of happy because the population has, in all this chaos, at least a clear guide with key points. Indeed, it is advantageous from the epidemiological point of view
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This gif is getting a lot of use in this thread 
pic.twitter.com/EGAPRgJN0I
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.