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 …
-
-
It had almost four million views as of that screenshot. You weren't alone in being this wrong and misreading the evidence, but you could've checked: the lead author of the article you cited as "evidence" for harm was publicly saying that wasn't the case & advocating for masks.
-
You join many, many others in not checking and not being able to read the evidence correctly. It's a crowded field, so I'm not holding you personally responsible. Similarly, you're now wrong that epi evidence for short-range aerosols isn't there. The opposite. Anyway, that's all.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you actually READ WHAT THE ARTICLE said in the context of the time, it was not wrong. As more evidence came out, I wrote another article that dealt with the question of people wearing masks to protect others, WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED in this article at all.
-
That article dealt *solely* with whether wearing a mask would protect you, the wearer, and at the time the article came out, the evidence did not support that.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I dealt with people not actually reading that article for weeks, re-explaining again and again what it actually said as opposed to what they thought it said, so I feel your pain.
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.