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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
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 -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Tara, I dealt with this viral article you wrote for weeks--people sending it to me. You guys finally changed its headline, after I forgot how many weeks, but the damage was done. You were wrong; in your defense, so was the CDC and WHO. But not everyone was wrong.pic.twitter.com/wBEvPcHDS1
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @tarahaelle and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
-
-
What’s most insulting & patronizing here is your suggestion that I’m unable to read the evidence when I have more expertise & experience in reading epi evidence than you do. You clearly, once again, aren’t reading what I’ve said about short range aerosols.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tarahaelle @zeynep and
I said that what engineers call short-range aerosols is the same as what epis call droplet transmission. It’s the SAME THING. Which means I agree with that as a method of transmission. But like epis, I don’t call that “airborne” bc that’s not an appropriate, precise term for it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.