I'd suggest that it doesn't help to jump from "distance isn't fully protective especially if you sit long enough in an enclosed space where the air keeps mixing" to headlines like "6 feet and 60 feet are the same!". Again @linseymarr and others have great work on this.
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Kimberly Prather, Ph.D.
Another from an expert.Of course aerosol concentration dilutes with distance (and very quickly outdoors for obvious reasons!) but if the space is enclosed, they can keep accumulating, and "6 feet" isn't some magic bubble—especially if you stay long enough.https://twitter.com/kprather88/status/1384162849354776579 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Kimberly Prather, Ph.D.Verified account @kprather88Replying to @tdonaghey @WHO @CDCgovIn general, the concentration falls off as a function of distance. However, this can get complicated by the fact that aerosols don't fall to the ground but instead can build up over time in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.6 replies 83 retweets 421 likesShow this thread -
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Dr. Alex Huffman (he/him)
Adding. It goes without saying that I'm just a vehicle here, reflecting years of research on this topic by many scientists. I'd like that headline corrected, at a minimum, though, @RichMendezCNBC. Telling people distance doesn't matter at all isn't okay.https://twitter.com/HuffmanLabDU/status/1385722709271711745 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Dr. Alex Huffman (he/him) @HuffmanLabDUReplying to @BedrockConcept @macroliter @StanfordThe point is that the authors numerically modeled the physical process of aerosol spread & they applied the assumption that air in a room is well-mixed. So the headline the editors picked really plays on their base assumption more than the actual results. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1385707216280375298 …9 replies 36 retweets 336 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
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.
9 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Dawn_Kopecki
Maybe you should talk to some people who've been publishing in this very field for years? Even if they told you that, it is a dangerous, misleading headline to put there that you should check with others (not me!). This is not some empty science field.
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @Dawn_Kopecki
It's not okay to put such a big claim in the headline with nobody else consulted even if, as you say, two MIT professors who have not published in this field before (with all due respect to their model) told you that's what their study means: that distance doesn't matter at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I think you need to read the entire story, not just the headline, to see what the authors of the study said themselves about their conclusions.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Dawn_Kopecki
That headline is misleading and dangerous, and there are an increasing number of scientists who've published in this very field telling you this in this thread and elsewhere. I read the article, it does NOT REFLECT the well-mixed assumption which is crucial.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
"The distancing isn't helping you that much and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," Bazant said.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Dawn_Kopecki
You can't just run with that, without checking with other scientists in the field on whether that's a justified conclusion and headline, with all due respect to the math model with a well-mixed room assumption from two people who have never before published on the topic.
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes
You can find legalistic reasons on why you can just quote them, or you can do the responsible thing & research if that's justified either as a conclusion or a headline, since people will assume it's true as is. I can refer you to dozens of leading, published people in this field.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @Dawn_Kopecki
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Eric Topol
I am a co-author on this paper, and can refer you to almost anyone who's been publishing in this field—the very people who've been showing why the six-feet rule isn't enough by itself or 100% protective, but also that doesn't mean distance is irrelevant.https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1382825519171833859 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Eric TopolVerified account @EricTopolAirborne it is.
The 10 streams of overwhelming evidence
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00869-2/fulltext …
@TheLancet by@trishgreenhalgh@kprather88@Rschooley@zeynep@jljcolorado@dfisman a 5-★ succinct summary pic.twitter.com/Ox305pSoaUShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @Dawn_Kopecki
zeynep tufekci Retweeted Linsey Marr
Another leading scientist on airborne transmission.https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1385751394595090436 …
zeynep tufekci added,
Linsey MarrVerified account @linseymarrReplying to @zeynep @jljcoloradoThis is a silly headline, as the model ASSUMES instantaneously and continuously well-mixed conditions, like if you blow a smoke ring, the moment it exits your mouth it immediate spreads evenly throughout the room. Under such conditions, of course distance doesn't matter!1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes - 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.