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 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @PearlF @tarahaelle
I doubt
@tarahaelle had anything to do with that piece. She's an excellent and a responsible journalist, I just don't agree with her take on how to cover this evidence.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @apoorva_nyc @PearlF
Thank you, Apoorva. You’re correct. I also believe you’re an excellent and responsible journalist & have long admired your work. It’s the reason I’ve held back for so long, and I genuinely didn’t know how to approach my concerns abt your reporting on airborne transmission.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Your reporting on children & Covid has been excellent. Your reporting related to schools has been excellent. I’ve shared both. With the airborne transmission, I feel you rely too heavily on engineers & chemists & not enough on epis and the epi evidnece.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @tarahaelle @PearlF
I did when the article was discussing *whether* airborne transmission is possible and had an epi element. But this piece was about the presence of infectious virus in air. So I talked to aerosol experts (including a couple with no dig in this fight) and virologists.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
My job, as you know, is to report the evidence, asking the right experts to evaluate the evidence for *that paper*. and by now, there are very few people who believe airborne transmission never happens, so it's not something to belabor
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Epidemiological evidence is *strongly* in favor of short-range aerosol transmission though. It's one of the strongest pieces of evidence for it. (Tara had gotten masks all wrong as well; amplifying the incorrect, though in fairness to her widely held, position they were harmful).
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 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.