...relevant experts from other fields. In that sense, Twitter is an important tool, but it's not the only tool. That's why I (and many others) also write and give interviews for mainstream media outlets. But that's still not official guidance. The agencies tasked with that...
-
-
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
...work do need to do a better job of communicating clearly and consistently, via social and mainstream media and their own published materials. I hope in the pandemic post-mortem this is addressed. It would be tremendously useful to all the experts here as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @zeynep and
I think the key question in any postmortem, was the lack of or insufficient discussion about aerosol transmission a significant contributor to spread? Regardless of the platform (only a small proportion of the population uses twitter), was this a *massive failure* or not?
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @samhorwich @angie_rasmussen and
It's December 1st & today the WHO *finally* updated guidance to say "if ventilation is poor wear masks indoors even if separated by 1m/3ft." Until now—eleven months!—WHO didn't advise people to wear masks indoors if one was a mere meter away from others. Very much a failure imo.
5 replies 29 retweets 114 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @samhorwich and
I wrote a single article on ventilation and still constantly contacted by desperate people whose workplace guidance has huge emphasis on deep cleaning (with bleach! indoors! without ventilating it out!) but either no or vague advice on ventilation. We didn't get here by accident.
2 replies 2 retweets 38 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @samhorwich and
So Twitter help aside, people needed simple, actionable guidelines and proper intuition about transmission. In my view, some concerns here about the word aerosol/airborne/analogies may apply to healthcare settings but were not a problem with public discussion.
4 replies 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @samhorwich and
I think it critical to stress that the issue of onward transmission and areosolization is extraordinarily complex w/in epi dynamics and there is no robust consensus, particularly w/ C19. Likewise, we have little data on public response to risk comms in C19. Caution is warranted.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrJaimeAnne @samhorwich and
I don't think there's much disagreement that aerosol transmission occurs, and it is critical especially in superspreading events which are widely documented to be key drivers of the epidemic. The exact proportion will likely be never known but guidance failure is obviously there.
2 replies 2 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @samhorwich and
I would respectfully disagree
@zeynep that the evidence on the routes/mechanisms of transmission and pathogensis are well-characterized or resolved. I would make the same argument for the scientific uncertainty surrounding risk response to communication about it as well.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrJaimeAnne @samhorwich and
Is there dispute that there is some level of transmission longer than one meters, especially in poorly- ventilated indoors? Even CDC and WHO say this now, I hardly see a lot of controversy over this anymore to be honest. What proportion etc. are good questions but unclear.
2 replies 3 retweets 9 likes
As for risk-communication, I think there is a lot of good work from disaster sociology that should—eventually—be incorporated into public health. Even the public health motto—"be first, be right, be credible"—was not followed. So we can disagree, sure, but my sense is that.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @samhorwich and
@zeynep I agree there is a wealth of information from many disciplines applicable to this comms landscape, yet to be applied. However, novel pathogens always involve a steep learning curve, and riding that curve closely is a more effective tactic than passing the buck or blame.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DrJaimeAnne @samhorwich and
I'm gonna call
@michaelmina_lab into this. It may have been novel but it was a respiratory pathogen in the SARS/MERS line. It wasn't HIV which upended the textbook. We have so much experience in risk/disaster comm already plus we had the experience of the SARS/MERS places.1 reply 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.