I am not sure our communities really care what you call the airborne particles that they can inhale and possibly get infected. Or what size they are. They want clear consistent guidance on how to reduce risk.
-
-
Replying to @ShellyMBoulder @zeynep and
That's true, and that's what many of us have been providing. I have been advising people of the same risk reduction measures since the spring, including letting people know that inhaled droplets are thought to be a major driver of transmission.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @ShellyMBoulder and
This is why the terminology is important, though. This entire issue has been one of communication. Transmission by inhaled droplets/aerosols/particles has been presented to the public as if this is new information when it's not and people are confused about what this means.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @ShellyMBoulder and
I am genuinely confused by what you are saying. - WHO talking about ballistic droplets, see video. And "FACT: NOT AIRBORNE". And guidance consistent w/ that, eg STILL NOW masks indoors only if can't keep 1 m distance https://twitter.com/i/status/1244258441880797184 …pic.twitter.com/InVsWjBydp
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
However you seem to say that "transmission by inhaled droplets" (i.e. aerosols) has been known for a while, not new info? - Perhaps internally among researchers? - Also at WHO? Is that why they rec ventilation w/o saying why? Recognize it is real but fear of saying "airborne"?
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
Having worked with WHO on this, I concur that they are still only recommending masks indoors *if* one meter distance cannot be maintained in the official guidance, and only recently acknowledged the possibility of any droplet/aerosol may remain "airborne" but stubbornly insist +
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
that cases like the choir practice and the Guangzhou restaurant etc. could still be fomite or droplet (which they do mean ballistic action but it's muddled). They also say no cases that demonstrate fomite transmission but they still consider it a key transmission mode. Confusing.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
I see the practical relevance of this confusion because, for example, colleges are preparing to open indoor spaces with masks, hand-sanitizers and distancing but not a lot of discussion, if any, about the importance of ventilation or recognition that 1-2m indoors isn't absolute.
4 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
The restaurant, call center, and choir practice all suggest inhaled droplets--whether ballistic or aerosol--are an "airborne" mode of transmission but it's also true that fomites can't be conclusively ruled out. That was obvious to me and why this has been so confusing.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
I think everyone understands that this virus can be transmitted by airborne routes. I can't speak to WHO's problems communicating that, but it's not shocking that a respiratory virus is airborne. The terminology is what is making this conversation so confusing.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes
I think your everyone is the experts, and I don't disagree. What I'm saying is the ordinary public is utterly confused. Is it like mist? Is it okay if we just stand 1m away, even without masks, like WHO recommends? Is a plexiglass barrier enough? Will it spread through vents?
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
For my part, I've focused less on droplet size and more on how risk reduction measures can have additive effects and people should implement as many as possible. Masks AND distancing AND avoid crowds AND avoid enclosed spaces AND barriers if possible.
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
And there isn't epi data supporting that this spreads through vents or air ducts. Viruses require hosts, so the greatest danger is exposure to other potential hosts, in this case, other people. The public does understand the concept of short-range airborne transmission.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes - Show replies
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.