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.
-
-
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 @angie_rasmussen and
Agree on that situation. WHO has issued recs on ventilation, our group helped them with those. But ppl don't understand **WHY**, have not made effort to implement, bc it is not clear WHY one would need to do that, if "FACT: NOT AIRBORNE" Once ppl understand, they take seriously!
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @angie_rasmussen and
The danger there is when people hear "AIRBORNE" many think of that scene in Outbreak when Dustin Hoffman looks up at the vent and realizes that this is going to spread to the whole hospital. This isn't that, nor is it measles, but also not just WHO's initial ballistic droplets.
4 replies 15 retweets 60 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @JeremyKonyndyk and
It's not measles, but it's almost identical in size, with similar morphology and is hearty (unless this link is wrong) https://viralzone.expasy.org/5216 Seems logical that it would float in the air for as long as measles, doesn't it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
No. We have six months of epidemiological data that says no. No need for speculation at this point.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @bryangrahn
Dr. Tufekci is correct. There is no epi data that supports this virus being like measles, and it is fundamentally a different virus from a different virus family. Measles remains infectious in the air for a much longer time than this virus.
0 replies 1 retweet 21 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.