Before this gets out of hand. "Distance doesn't matter" IS NOT what "it's airborne" or primarily aerosol-transmitted means or implies, and the headline is not reflecting correctly a modeling paper they are using says. Calling in @linseymarr and @jljcolorado among others.https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1385628971086323719 …
-
-
And here’s another leading scientist on airborne transmission.https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1385751394595090436 …
Show this thread -
Leading aerosol/ventilation scientist after another has tried to get CNBC to correct the dangerously misleading headline and framing. Still no go. Distance of course matters, but isn’t 100% protective in a poorly-ventilated space over time. Shouldn’t be this hard.https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1385892995233468417 …
Show this thread -
See these this three tweets for more on the problem with the headline/framing that
@kprather88@linseymarr@jljcolorado@j_g_allen tried to explain among many others (out and about lost track of the many who tried).https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1385752349738688518 …Show this thread -
Enough already. This headline is dangerously misleading. Distance does a lot of work, even indoors, but if the location is enclosed then, OVER TIME, the air will mix to farther away places (though viruses also lose infectivity over time).
@Marianne_Guenot https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1387069955343097856 …pic.twitter.com/oToyKAIgEF
Show this thread -
Thread
has many aerosol scientists. Our paper below explains why distance matters for airborne transmission. TBH, this is the cost of global health agencies not stepping up to provide correct transmission explanations. Misinformation thrives in a vacuum.https://twitter.com/samuelmehr/status/1386837096313368582?s=20 …
Show this thread -
Oh my goodness, STOP! That study—a model—did not find that distance offers "no protection". The model *assumed* the air was continuously and completely mixed in an enclosed space! That's not how real life works. Indoors, air does mix *over time* but also virus loses infectivity.pic.twitter.com/cbsnPGKuZo
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m sorry you don’t agree with the study’s conclusions, but if you read the full article you will see that the headline and article are accurate. That is what they told us.
-
Both/And ... There is something to be said for the influence of room-mixed air, where you still have risk anywhere in the room. But in those first few feet (even w/ masks), distance is also really *critical*. Exposure is much higher in that breathing zone.https://twitter.com/HuffmanLabDU/status/1385725987413905410 …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Gotta love that the “vehicle” is one of the few people capable of reasonable discussion and communication.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
IMHO the main takeaway here should be that for contact tracing purposes the definition of ‘close contact’ should be expanded to people who spent a significant time in the same room (or heating / AC zone). For instance, my office shares an air handler with four other offices.
-
I would consider myself exposed if one of my coworkers tested positive in any of these same-zone offices because we’re breathing the same air. (Fortunately I’m vaccinated, but I think that under my proposed contact rule, I’d still have to quarantine.) Working from home for now.
End of conversation
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.