96/ Lidia Morawska organized an international group of scientists to talk to @WHO, which we did on 3-Apr-2020.
I found that meeting shocking, couldn't get my head around why the @WHO experts were SOOOO dismissive of airborne.
-
-
97/
@Don_Milton said the super-strong anti-airborne prejudice was due to history and this Chapin fellow. I was very perplexed. But I started reading on the history and talking to people. And I learned in the last year what I have told you today.2 replies 19 retweets 224 likesShow this thread -
98/ So yours truly and 100s of scientists have spent the last year working on this, as exemplified by this depiction:pic.twitter.com/Uurl423qiU
2 replies 67 retweets 399 likesShow this thread -
99/ Cleary droplet theory is sinking, unable to explain the observations. Still its proponents are resorting to the equivalent of epicycles, trying to save a failing theory by adding patches like "situational airborne" But Thomas Kuhn is coming for them w/ a paradigm shift...pic.twitter.com/tAzBqDKgCt
4 replies 66 retweets 353 likesShow this thread -
100/ Our work is not done. It is critical to tell the world loud and clear that this virus is airborne, 1-on-1 in close proximity and 1-to-several in shared room air. The message, and the changes in mitigations, have not arrived to many countries, or not clearly.
13 replies 124 retweets 458 likesShow this thread -
101/ OK, I'll leave it there for today. But if you made it to here, please answer this question. Should I do something with this thread?
106 replies 26 retweets 278 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jljcolorado
Seems to me that the 1980 Langmuir paper laid out a different path out, even if the Chapin model was inherently dominant. Sociologically, I think its important that by that time hospital epidemiology was more dominant within the field of infection control.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @avizvizenilman @jljcolorado
In 2012 you still had people like Nolti at NIOSH--who ended up writing the mask guidance for CDC in Feb--noting aerosolized influenza.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @avizvizenilman @jljcolorado
To me, a core question is why SARS-1 didn't crack the paradigm--that seems like a key turning point, where concerns about aerosolization were beaten back because "droplet precautions" worked.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @avizvizenilman @jljcolorado
(Jose, Avi is one of my incredible research assistants). Yes a fascinating question why the western world didn’t figure out after SARS. I looked some at that, and my current sense is they did close contact therefore droplets conflation and ignored the many obvious violations.+
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
And since the epidemic was overdispersed, you need a large sample to get the kind of statistical power and obviousness stand out. Most things “work” simply because there’s no transmission anyway. And then the epidemic died so they ignored it. Evidence is clear in retrospect.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado
Yeah should be clear that the post-SARS argument was as follows: People in Hong Kong hospitals wore surgical masks--"droplet precautions"--and there weren't multiple major outbreaks in hospitals. Therefore: droplets!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.