Attention IPAC practitioners: an R of 2.5 is not evidence that sars-2 is not airborne. Rather, an R that is usually < 1, but can be 60 or 100 (i.e., overdispersion) is STRONG evidence that when this infects, it infects via aerosol.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @DFisman
That and close-contact: biggest misunderstandings maybe? One interesting part for me has been how the incorrect assumptions lead to "airborne is too scary to think about" rather than "wait, there is a huge bang for our buck from targeting factors that lead to clusters".
3 replies 14 retweets 121 likes -
Never understood why more attention was not devoted to this. If we could target events that lead to clusters, it becomes a really rubbish
1 reply 1 retweet 30 likes
Replying to @ArisKatzourakis @DFisman
I don't either, really. It's an obvious chokepoint and weakness. I think a lot of Western public health had a sticky prior with flu because we were expecting an influenza pandemic.
1 reply
1 retweet
15 likes
-
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.