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 …
-
-
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 tell people to read the actual article from MIT(not that misleading crap): A method to assess Covid-19 transmission risks in indoor settings. MIT researchers have developed a publicly available model based on physics and data from past spreading events.https://news.mit.edu/2021/covid-19-risks-indoor-0415 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
For my workplace I've tried to summarize as "distance is valuable but subordinate to good masking and ventilation". (In my experience, attention to distance often draws attention away from the latter.) A reasonable statement?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.