9/ -There is PCC both indoors & outdoors. Drops are ballistic, no time for dilution or UV to remove virus, don’t care indoors or outdoors, should be similar. Aerosols are carried by the wind, incredible dilution, more time for UV to destroy virus (very quick).
-
Show this thread
-
10/ Run Skagit choir case in aerosol transmission estimator (https://tinyurl.com/covid-estimator “choir” sheet), reproduces infection rate. Now move exact choir outdoors (“outdoors” sheet), infection drops from 83% to 0.4%.
3 replies 64 retweets 256 likesShow this thread -
11/ Real-world: "The vast majority of transmission seems to be through close contact with an infected individual, primarily in an indoor setting." (CBC article above). Only aerosols can explain this.
8 replies 81 retweets 310 likesShow this thread -
12/ Conclusion: for the first time, I am ready to say publicly that my *guess* is that the majority (>50%) of the spread is through aerosols. Pls comment w/ your take.
@linseymarr@ShellyMBoulder@CathNoakes@Don_Milton@SaskiaPopescu@angie_rasmussen@eliowa@GidMK29 replies 106 retweets 402 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jljcolorado @linseymarr and
Since the case reports of the Guangzhou restaurant and the South Korean call center, its been pretty clear that spread occurs through inhaled droplets/aerosols regardless of size. I don’t think we have enough evidence to say how much or to exclude fomite transmission. 1/2
2 replies 6 retweets 42 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @jljcolorado and
I think the real problem has been communication across disciplines. The terminology is confusing and means different things to different people, which is why I agree with
@SaskiaPopescu that we need to reconsider the language we use to discuss “airborne” transmission. 2/24 replies 8 retweets 52 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @jljcolorado and
Yes — my current layperson’s understanding is that the the Guangzhou restaurant case establishes that aerosol transmission occurred because long distance. Also aerosol transmission ruled out because no Brownian motion transmission beyond the air conditioner’s trajectory. Amirite?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @geunsmeyer @jljcolorado and
The Guangzhou restaurant suggested that air currents resulted in exposure to airborne droplets that could have been inhaled. But yes, because there wasn't widespread transmission throughout the restaurant, that argues against small particle aerosols. IMO the main issue here is...
3 replies 3 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @geunsmeyer and
...what people mean when they say "aerosols" or "airborne". Different disciplines mean different things, and that's different from how the general public understand these terms, adding to the confusion. This is a communication issue and that's why the terminology needs revising.
4 replies 3 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @geunsmeyer and
Maybe we will need to consider the role of A/C for indoors, and focus on behavior, not just size. If it were classic aerosol (to stabilize terminology, say, < 5 μm) spread for Guangzhou case, why were only people down-wind of the A/C currents infected, but not one table over?
3 replies 2 retweets 16 likes
So multiple issues. The lack of consistent terminology plus not enough current research on different size particles in different ventilation circumstances indoors. It's not measles, obviously, but it's also infecting people not within classic droplet reach. Appreciate this convo!
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
That puts it well, as to where it is on the range, pending a lot more VERY carefully controlled observation and research.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.