“Predominantly airborne” doesn’t mean masks and distancing are useless. In fact, aerosol scientists were among the first to emphasize both. But correct theory of transmission gives both better explanations of the epidemiological record and better mitigations over a broader range.
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Don Milton
Why this really matters. This isn’t quibbles at the margins. Its an incorrect paradigm being replaced. Some things overlap between the two, but not everything does and thus there will likely be many real changes going forward that affect *other* respiratory pathogens as well.https://twitter.com/Don_Milton/status/1382891848356741125 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Don Milton @Don_MiltonLate 90s and early 2000s when we were showing that there were respiratory virus aerosols indoors, that ventilation reduced work absence, that indoor CO2 predicted risk of infection -- peer reviewers frequently said I was crazy. It's been a long time. Sad that it took a pandemic. https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1382842521286549508 …24 replies 111 retweets 499 likesShow this thread -
Another great paper, making the case for the predominance of airborne transmission and, crucially, focusing on practical recommendations for buildings with a realistic & nuanced discussion of the trade-offs. Three papers in key medical journals in a week! https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1383073549380882438 …pic.twitter.com/cX8TGGrb07
3 replies 61 retweets 185 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted
Our
@TheLancet paper is a work of synthesis in the service of a causal framework that best explains observed phenomenon over a year of intense data collection. I'd be interested to read a case for "it's predominantly and/or largely droplets" fits the data. https://twitter.com/dylanhmorris/status/1382827972239843330 …zeynep tufekci added,
This Tweet is unavailable.3 replies 25 retweets 144 likesShow this thread -
I don't mean the above as lip service. I don't see how the totality of evidence works well for an explanation that differs fundamentally, but I'd be super interested in reading that framework: not as an assumption in textbooks but as how it fits the full range observational data.
3 replies 1 retweet 71 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted ɪᴀɴ ᴍ. ᴍᴀᴄᴋᴀʏ, ᴘʜᴅ 🦠 🤧 🧬 🥼 🦟 🧻 🧙♂️
I want to add two things that I see confused/claimed. First, see this thread and the paper itself where we explicitly discuss whether the predominance of close contact transmission implies gravity-driven droplet transmission is primary or even a lot.https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1383370706843410433 …
zeynep tufekci added,
ɪᴀɴ ᴍ. ᴍᴀᴄᴋᴀʏ, ᴘʜᴅ 🦠 🤧 🧬 🥼 🦟 🧻 🧙♂️Verified account @MackayIMThe fact that most respiratory virus infections happen when people spend time close together, doesn't automatically imply ballistic droplets are the main route of transmission. I'd just like this said more clearly. There are those who can't grasp this orShow this thread1 reply 9 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
This paper looks at totality of observed data and evidence from past year, and argues why aerosol-transmission as primary route can parsimoniously explain it all, while droplets as primary route contradicts key parts of the evidence. I'd love to read the opposite case if written.
2 replies 6 retweets 67 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
Wes Pegden Retweeted Wes Pegden
Viewing this as an argument between two sides (one of which will be "right" and the other "wrong") misses, I think, that a lot of the epidemiological questions are less settled by the droplet size distinctions than much of the aerosol advocacy suggests.https://twitter.com/WesPegden/status/1383152988517249025 …
Wes Pegden added,
Wes Pegden @WesPegdenReplying to @zeynep @TheLancet and 5 othersA reasonable competing view is: 1) "Aerosol" droplets may matter most 2) Most transmission is still from close contact 3) Outdoors is much safer even for close contact 4) HEPA/central ventilation don't come close to reproducing these benefits, but may help with rare events.1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @WesPegden
If you think at what size particles necessarily fall down within a meter or can float, and which type is dominant is irrelevant, I don't know what to say. Getting the droplet boundary wrong by 20X has real epidemiological implications. The "aerosol advocacy" isn't a fight.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I am not saying it is irrelevant at all. But some people jump from reasoning about droplet sizes to distributing epidemic risk calculators that don't account for distance or saying HEPA filters are parachutes. There are different ways to be wrong and they all matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
How some others may be wrong about implications of aerosol transmission have much to do with the—obvious to me—fact that it's important to get the primary transmission mechanism correct, and I disagree we can fudge that simply because there's overlap in some mitigations.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.