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).
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
But the health impact whether it is short or long range aerosols doesn't matter, does it? The smaller ones (which travel further and build up in a room) will still get to the same place in your lungs, right? Can you explain how the designation of short or long range matters?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kprather88 @angie_rasmussen and
Did you see Outbreak? There's a scene Dustin Hoffman looks at the ceiling vent and says "it's airborne!" to mean that it's gonna spread all over the hospital; that everyone in the same building is at equal risk. We see a Steadicam shot through vents. That's what people may think.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @angie_rasmussen and
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.
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @kprather88 @angie_rasmussen and
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.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @kprather88 and
@zeynep is right on with the "it's airborne!" scene from Outbreak. As ridiculous as that movie was, that is what people think. I don't think clarifying to people that an enclosed space is different from a building's HVAC system is an insurmountable communication challenge.2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
I've stopped saying "6 feet" as a hard and fast rule and tried to emphasize the additive nature of risk reduction, including avoiding high-risk situations altogether. If that can't be avoided, then take as many other risk reduction measures as possible.
3 replies 6 retweets 40 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
Ditto- I actually use this as way to explain why our focus on 6 ft as a hard rule isn’t the best way to go - understanding the environment and how 6 ft may not be enough, so other infection prevention measures are important. It’s a packaged approach, not singular.
3 replies 5 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @SaskiaPopescu @angie_rasmussen and
How do you factor mask use into this equation. The change in guidance from the CDC from 6’ to as low as 3’ for schools (with mask use) has many in the community scratching their head.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ErinBromage @SaskiaPopescu and
Three feet is the WHO guidance (I don't agree). Also masks are most important for the speaker, and we need urgent research into better solutions for teachers/speakers in indoor environments. That said, explaining masks for source protection vs PPE is key imo.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
What I've been telling folks is that, indoors, if sharing an air pocket, keep the mask on regardless of the distance. The topic of children's transmission is very unsettled, but I think kids K-12 can mask up (they do in many countries) and okay if younger ones do it imperfectly.
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.