Seems CDC has removed airborne update for now but it looks like they accidentally posted a draft. Okay. The wording could be a bit clearer anyway.
Let's wait for the (hopefully quick) update, as trust is key to public health. It's already late!https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1308086726179643394 …
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Amy S. Rosenberg
Scientists have been trying—all year—to highlight and explain airborne transmission of aerosols. Both CDC & WHO are still lagging. My article is from July. But here we are. Everyone simply wearing masks would be better than whatever this is supposed to do.https://twitter.com/amysrosenberg/status/1312546192669265922 …
zeynep tufekci added,
13 replies 87 retweets 361 likesShow this thread -
Don't get me wrong; Jamie Harrison is doing the best he can, along with the rest of the public muddling through the confusing and incomplete guidance. Without proper visuals and guidelines or airborne transmission from the authorities, what can people do? It's an overall failure.
9 replies 32 retweets 305 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
No masks indoors but on playgrounds?
Failure all around. CDC still hasn't posted guidelines for airborne transmission. WHO's advice to the public still doesn't *mention* ventilation or how 3 feet isn't enough indoors or say masks on at all times indoors. https://twitter.com/reneritchie/status/1313103214963838978 …zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.3 replies 52 retweets 150 likesShow this thread -
This is WHO's page for the public. It has many paragraphs on the use of hand-sanitizers but doesn't say *even once* that ventilation is important or outdoors is safer than indoors. WHO guidelines maintain the fiction that mere three feet is enough indoors. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public …pic.twitter.com/gBkU5Ihva7
8 replies 79 retweets 220 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I understand the CDC’s corruption somewhat, but why is the WHO so corrupted on the issue of ventillation?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don’t believe it’s corruption, they just are set in the mind to reject aerosols until there is scientific proof of their danger The mountain of circumstantial evidence isn’t considered sufficient to update guidance
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Information Junkie 👨💻 Retweeted
See comment/thread here https://twitter.com/epireport/status/1312809177547452421?s=21 …
Information Junkie 👨💻 added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JustTheFacts37 @ncweaver
There is mountains of evidence, but this is the way it works. Some people find it very hard to adjust to emerging evidence even if it is overwhelming. There are disagreements and some open questions, but that's not where it is.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
They have ventilation in some guidelines, but not in their public facing advice or on their mask guidance or as part of their coherent messaging. It's catastrophic for a public health agency to have such a splintered message, with the public facing parts this wrong.
-
-
I also think a root problem is all previous diseases called “airborne” also were “airborne with low challenge dose” This thing is “airborne but with more significant challenge dose”. It is the difference between smelling a whiff of pot smoke and breathing it for 1/2 an hour.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.