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 …
-
-
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 threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oof, I hate how headlines can distort an idea so quickly. Do they think everyone reads the whole article? I wish! Isn’t one way to think about our aerosols like Pigpen from Peanuts? Basically a cloud around us all the time that drifts and wafts? Sort of?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Misinformation thrives in a vacuum, aerosols not so much.
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.
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.