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 @GidMK
-
Show 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 -
Replying to @zeynep @geunsmeyer and
We do certainly need to focus on air flow, as well as behavior, but that's why "airborne" and "aerosol" need updating. The downwind effect suggests that it probably wasn't small particle aerosols, but this gets right to the heart of the terminology issues...
2 replies 5 retweets 29 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
...what's the difference between a < 5 um aerosol vs a slightly larger airborne droplet? Not having good terminology muddies the water and makes it hard to communicate effectively with each other and with the public.
4 replies 3 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @geunsmeyer and
All that, but also for example, as colleges try to reopen, it's leading to magical thinking, that they can have unventilated indoor space and just keep to six feet and maybe masks and be fine. Well, masks may help some but we have many indoor superspreader events beyond six feet.
2 replies 5 retweets 19 likes
I'm hoping this kind of conversation both leads to standardized terminology, but also a stronger, more nuanced communication to authorities about the whole six feet thing not being a binary cut-off, but a range with different implications depending on airflow set-up. *sigh*
-
-
Thanks. 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.