That's because people are desperate for effective mitigation measures, and you cannot get there without explaining and centering airborne transmission. Countries with surges are *still* not distinguishing indoor/outdoor, explaining mask fit/filter etc. This isn't quibbling.https://twitter.com/DFisman/status/1385241631306260490 …
-
Show this thread
-
This isn't a jargon fight. The crucial problem is the *mechanism* needs explaining in order to arrive at the right mitigations and for those to make sense. "It occurs mostly at close contact" doesn't get us there, especially without explaining the correct underlying mechanism.
5 replies 44 retweets 266 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
Folks who were aerosol skeptics have more recently said things like "we're not denying aerosol transmission happens, we just don't know if it's the dominant mode". Haziness about mechanism, lost in the great fog of uncertainty, makes "outside better than inside" seem arbitrary
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @iskander
Exactly. Saying "sure it happens some" (even that used to be denied but we moved on given overwhelming evidence) isn't enough because it doesn't lead to correct mitigations or understanding! Anyone who doesn't think it's dominant needs to present their theory of the epi record.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
We see incorrect mitigations due to erroneous transmission assumptions so clearly around the world, and we still see this some here (CDC has moved along faster and more than the WHO). I don't understand how the implications can be denied. This will be in so many history books.
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.