You should just engage me directly, @tarahaelle. The article says quite clearly that it’s not clear how much virus is needed or how much airborne transmission contributes to the overall risk. But to not cover all this evidence at all, that is what I would say is irresponsible.https://twitter.com/tarahaelle/status/1293671860429901825 …
-
-
There are definitely unknowns with short-range aerosols (like there were with masks early on but we always knew harms argument was evidence-free) but epidemiological evidence is the strongest reason to start suspecting it. Rest is different kinds of evidence + more to learn.
-
What you call short-range aerosols are what epidemiologists call droplets in the 5-50um range—and they do believe they’re involved. If you’d bothered to read any of the tweets I wrote before making your assumptions, you’d know that. 85% of the airborne “argument” is semantics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Love how you continue to misrepresent me, Zeynep. I didn’t say masks were harmful. I wasn’t wrong abt them. I said community masks wld be a good idea WHEN IT BECAME POSSIBLE for the US to do it (I said that the first week of March), and you’re misrepresenting what I’m saying here
-
It would have been 1 thing to tell the public not 2use n95 & medical grade masks because those are critical supplies 4 healthcare workers, but anyone telling the public that masks in general (incl cloth masks) weren't needed or helpful was misleading people even if unintentional
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Epidemiological evidence is *strongly* in favor of droplets, WHICH INCLUDES droplets between 5-50um that float along the air on their way to the floor. Epis and engineers/chemists both agree w that but call it different things.
Thanks. 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.