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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
No one cares anymore
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Instantaneous mixing is a common aerosol modeling assumption; it's virtually impossible to predict generalized near-field concentrations with any accuracy. You'd need something more detailed than a basic lumped-parameter model but more general than CFD; not sure that exists.
-
Clearly concentration decreases with distance; the basic Gaussian plume model has been used for decades to model outdoor concentrations. Indoor ventilation is much more complex, it's really only tractable if you assume well-mixed conditions. It's a well-known limitation
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.