What's true is that in a "well-mixed" room (VERY IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION IN THE MODEL IN THAT PAPER BEING REPORTED ON), if you spend long enough time, distance isn't *completely* protective which IS NOT AT ALL THE same as "distance doesn't matter" or that 6 and 60 feet are the same.
-
-
You are asking Betsy McCaughey, who has a decades long career of doing exactly this, to stop. She nor that rag that she wrote in will stop at this. It is too lucrative to stop.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I just don’t understand how someone can conceptually believe the risk is going to be equal at 3 ft and 60ft. Utter nonsense.
-
Right it’s absurd on its face. But then again the target audience probably believes the risk is equal to 0 at all distances
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Let's be honest, it's the
@newyorkpost. Nuff' said.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I get that “distance in feet” is a metric people can understand, but wouldn’t density of people in a given enclosed space combined with air exchange (and currents, I suppose too) matter as much if not more?
-
Density schmensity. McCaughey advocated against the 6 foot rule in the article with the example of hotel banquets that can’t get to full capacity. She completely ignores the value of reduced density of people in a space.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
When you look at the other articles she's written on the side of that screenshot, her (likely intentional) misinterpretation of that study becomes far less surprising.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The reporting has run off into la-la land. I talked with
@bellwak@washingtonpost, who might run a clean-up article, but the real story isn't nearly as exciting/alarming. -
What reporting? This is in the NY Post, an entertainment pub
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The paper clearly explains why mixing is much faster than losing infectivity or settling. The problem with the NY Post story is that 3' really is more dangerous than ≥6' because of large short-range droplets.
-
Even at short range exposure is dominated by aerosols. You more or less have to be in someones face for large ballistic droplets to dominate.
- 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.
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.