Something I feel not everyone appreciates in stories about airborne Covid-19 spread. Epidemiologists and engineers approach this question with different tools, and different questions. (Correct me if I'm wrong here, please).
-
Show this thread
-
Epis ask: "what are the patterns of contagion we're actually observing, and which known model do they fit?" Engineers ask: "what are the physics/mechanics of disease spread, and can we observe it, experimentally?"
9 replies 21 retweets 138 likesShow this thread -
Neither approach perfectly answers the question of what we really want to know: Which is an omniscient view of how virus gets from one body to another, in the real world, and causes infections.
2 replies 5 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @B_resnick
Total opposite. I heard from airborne spread & short-range aerosols from *epidemiologists* first because that was the only thing that could explain the epi data, and started looking for the answers. What you're describing is a US-specific phenomenon, at best. Epi leans airborne.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep @B_resnick
There are pieces to fill with the virology and there is more research needed from the engineering/experimental side—but when the history of this is written, the epidemiology will likely be cited as the strongest evidentiary link for aerosols, just like yellow fever/Aedes aegypti.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'm just baffled how this isn't obvious to people, and how insular the science community in the US/Europe can be, I guess, and ignore extensive and proven expertise elsewhere (and we're behind and don't have the track record on this, so you'd hope for some humility there).
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.