14/ No time for a protracted fight. To overcome the current impasse, in which the evidence favors aerosol transmission (e.g https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1288932022547656704 …) but the official guidance only timidly and contortedly acknowledges it, we need enough allies on ID-E-PH to turn the tide
-
-
So if I had magic-wand to fix terminology, I'd use short-range aerosols and nothing else. But there is no way to stuff airborne back into a bag so imho we should work on its incorrect connotations and fill that space with correct information (misinformation thrives on voids).
-
In the piece y'all contributed so much to, I kept saying short-range aerosols and explaining but I also didn't want people to think there is short-range aerosols and something *else* called airborne, and that the latter was impossibly scary. Really tough but here we are!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That’s more or less where I landed, too. I think leading with something like ‘airborne’ can help capture the attention of folks not already on board with precautions, & be an on-ramp to the nuanced discussions, helping to move the needle toward adoption of safety measures.
-
When we were looking for studies about PH messaging to help us design our face covering PSAs, wasn’t a whole lot of clear results out there, and I’ve been highly influenced by this by
@AuforGAhttps://slate.com/technology/2019/03/public-health-strategy-vaccination-smoking-media-campaign.html … - 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.