One of the things we do in infection prev/epi is community-based education. From the beginning, convos about the use of “airborne” were about the meaning & how we explain it in the context of a novel ID. This is why the @CDCgov has taken such care to discuss situational arbne. 1/
-
-
Exactly. I live in a province where our gov and our health officials do not recognize or communicate on aerosol transmission. Or inhalation of shared air if you prefer. The extent of their ventilation recs are "ensure good ventilation". The public here has no freaking idea.
-
Yup. People think they can hang out inside for hours but not wear masks because they stay 2m apart and their hands are clean. They need to understand that the virus fills the room...like, months ago!
#COVIDisAirbornehttps://twitter.com/First10EM/status/1333554180594814980 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree wholeheartedly the communication has been a total failure in the US, and in many other countries. However, Dr. Popescu's original point was that the recommendations themselves haven't changed for months. What needs to change are how those recs are communicated.
-
And simply saying "airborne" does not appear to improve the clarity with which those recommendations are communicated, or emphasizing the importance of additive exposure risk reduction.
- 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.