17/ Summary: while all arguments carry some weight, to me (e)-(f)-(g) appear overwhelmingly more important in current situation. If, as I think, calling it “aerosol” get us closer to WHO etc accepting “aerosol transmission plays a substantial role in community”, setting...
-
-
Whereas the consensus of the aerosol-scientists is that, yes, close-range is most risk and while the epidemiology does show spread beyond six feet in what I'm calling the 3Vs—venue (indoors), ventilation (poor), vocalization (a lot)—lines up, it's also not spreading like that.
-
That said, I think the only way forward is to provide authoritative and science-based guidance that's also honest about the uncertainty but calm: There is a bunch of stuff we don't yet know, but a strong case for adding ventilation to the mitigation stack in particular ways.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
What is long vs short range? Most think 6 ft. My concern is anyone in a poorly ventilated room with a sick person speaking and breathing aerosols can expose/infect everyone in that room. That is long range because it can happen beyond 6 ft. So I just say tiny aerosols in the air.
-
Right, so we have to tell people that, under certain conditions, 6 feet is no guarantee and that it's not a magic numbers, that indoors, masks are necessary even with distancing, but that they don't really have to worry about everyone in their apartment complex unless shared air.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
To be clear, I do my best to explain it in a calm and helpful way. I am concerned if it is called "short-range", it is misleading people to think that if they are more than 6 ft away in a poorly ventilated room, it is OK to not wear a mask (WHO/CDC recs) which is not true.
-
I have been dealing with this misunderstanding at my work.
- 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.