The amount of energy we spend confidently predicting catastrophe from things we can see while ignoring a year of evidence on where the high risk are—indoors, workplaces, mostly poor and minority essential workers, crowded housing, congregate living, elderly.
-
Show this thread
-
No doubt young people can contribute a lot to spread, but the way to deal with that is to figure out the risks and avoid driving them into crowded indoor socializing and to test them often. (Also don’t gather them in dorms & send them home in a panic without testing. Like Fall.)
7 replies 38 retweets 587 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
Nope. It was a maskless and prolonged indoor event. We just got more media pictures from the outdoors portion because... looking for keys under the light is easier. (Outdoor transmission isn't impossible. Just really rare and much harder). https://twitter.com/Maxtropolitan/status/1363505037410975745 …
zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.8 replies 31 retweets 637 likesShow this thread -
I published my first piece pleading to keep parks open & letting people socialize outdoors on April 1st 2020. I stand by every word. It wasn't that complicated. The epi data, the reasons, the sociology of a sustainable pandemic response. It was all there. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/closing-parks-ineffective-pandemic-theater/609580/ …pic.twitter.com/ldahx4cLj0
7 replies 107 retweets 740 likesShow this thread -
I was trying, desperately, to warn us to get ready in February of 2020—and being lectured about being too panicky—but also trying to swat down the baseless moral panic once we started having more clarity on the shape of the risk—and being told, a lot, to stay in my lane.
6 replies 23 retweets 393 likesShow this thread -
It makes sense to be extra cautious at first when facing a murky, exponential threat. But if we don't then adjust the communication and the rules as the shape of the risk becomes clearer & have proper trade-off discussions, we get fatigue, non-compliance and *more risk* not less.
11 replies 120 retweets 799 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted 💚 Jens-Petter Salvesen 🌍
This is what I'd expect. It's been a year and I am not aware of a single outdoor-only superspreader event. It's not impossible but after a year, it seems low enough risk that I don't really worry about it until we get one.https://twitter.com/jpsalvesen/status/1363512609924866049 …
zeynep tufekci added,
💚 Jens-Petter Salvesen 🌍 @jpsalvesenReplying to @zeynepData point: Students in Bergen, Norway had their start-of -the-year party indoors in a basement, out of sight. Major cluster. Oslo students partied outdoors. Major news coverage but no major cluster traced. (But later on, they hid indoors and are now lonely w remote learning)23 replies 77 retweets 445 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.28.20029272v2.full-text … (preprint) finds 7 superspreader events (according to their definition), of which 1 was outdoors. https://academic.oup.com/jid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742/6009483 … reviews that study and others and finds the odds of outdoor transmission much lower than indoors, but not negligibly small either.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @roelschroeven
Yeah I interviewed the author. Paper has seven cases of transmission to three or more people. If you look at the data, it's all three, not "three or more". I actually track down the rarese reports, and have found very few purely outdoor settings. (Jogging together is one).
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @roelschroeven
Most examples I managed to track down (and there are very few) are outdoor/indoor events or misreported. For example, the review paper you link cites a German park incident. If you look at the reference, there is no such case. Not impossible for sure but... Not seen reports.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Thank you for your clarifications, and for your effort. I heard some professor on the radio talk about 1/10 transmissions outdoor, which is what concerned me a bit, but it seems quite overblown indeed. The review paper talks about <1/10, which is not the same thing.
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.