"More research is needed." Yep, as usual. Just like with masks in March, there's a preponderance of evidence to act on ventilation. The answer to shortages was to treat the public as a partner & adults who deserve information; the answer to "don't scare the public" is.. the same.
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Brian Resnick
FWIW, the reason I got into ventilation/short-range aerosol research was what I heard from *epidemiologists* first who decisively argued that that epi data was the strongest reason to suspect this mode of transmission. This isn't a US-only conversation!https://twitter.com/B_resnick/status/1293934375009165312 …
zeynep tufekci added,
2 replies 27 retweets 98 likesShow this thread -
That engineers are arguing for aerosol transmission while Epi/ID folks are against works only if one cherry-picks examples plus ignores countries with top-notch experts and solid track record outside the US/EU. Even here, despite disagreements, the consensus/overlap isn't small.
2 replies 7 retweets 62 likesShow this thread -
This week, the WHO is holding a "wear-a-mask" challenge and our outlets are writing a "how did the WHO/US/CDC/UK/EU/media got it so wrong" articles. How about we do better this time and practice evidence-based causal inference and communication that treats the public like adults?
1 reply 20 retweets 93 likesShow this thread -
Honestly, the idea that there's some sort of engineers vs. epidemiologists/infectious-disease specialists divide on airborne/aerosol transmission is just not true the moment you step out into the world. Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan.. US is just behind, again, that's all.
3 replies 38 retweets 162 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Trisha Greenhalgh
This is why this "debate" matters. This isn't safe even if people are distanced (WHO says 3 feet and CDC says 6 feet is enough!!) exactly because short-range aerosols and their accumulation indoors, not just droplets that immediately fall, is a concern.https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/1293826751844450304?s=20 …
zeynep tufekci added,
3 replies 36 retweets 129 likesShow this thread -
Why getting airborne right matters. UNC has clusters. (Surprise? No). They're contact tracing for within six feet without masks. NOT ENOUGH FOR INDOORS. Distance isn't that protective indoors *and* source-control masks aren't magic. We need updated evidence-based guidelines ASAP.pic.twitter.com/ob2zTSVALa
4 replies 87 retweets 220 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
The cost of not explaining the mode of transmission and risks correctly. This is simply not protective enough indoors, and CDC and the WHO need to urgently update their guidelines. (Look at that window that's being ignored!) https://twitter.com/ProfChrisMJones/status/1293909582692007936 …
zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.3 replies 73 retweets 173 likesShow this thread -
(Also, the answer to the terminology issues is to use the terms people will use—yes, airborne—with ample description and visuals. Linguistics teaches us that we cannot prescriptively do away with people's words, and if we try, what we will get is misunderstanding misinformation.)
2 replies 16 retweets 85 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
Problem is different terms/meanings used by medics and aerosol scientists. Aerosol scientists need more terms because they study air flow, particles, droplets in more detail. Medics stuck in 1930's view of droplet transmission. Need to explain details.https://www.initial.com/blog/how-can-you-catch-diseases-through-the-air/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Thanks, I obviously had no idea even though I managed to write thousands of words on the very topic in the article on top of the thread you're responding to. I don't know what I'd do without Twitter.
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.