I agree...I honestly want to see proof it is mostly close range...with contact tracing, we force that answer, don't we? I have been calling it the streetlamp effect for many months...
-
-
Replying to @kprather88 @dylanhmorris and
Close range transmission OBVIOUSLY important. Many examples in my own life of seeing it happen. Households, work places etc. One unvaccinated person infected my buddy at his job in NYC. Delta infected a whole household of vaxxed friends of ours, after a kid <10 brought it home.
3 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @macroliter @kprather88 and
Nobody is saying it is not important. Rather, it is: close-range transmission also appears to be dominated by aerosols, and long-range transmission is not only obviously possible, we may be underestimating it due to ascertainment bias in the way we trace cases (see NFL example).
3 replies 14 retweets 83 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
If close range transmission was also dominated by droplets, there could not be this stark a difference between indoor/outdoor transmission & ventilation would make little to no difference indoors: droplets would ballistically land on people regardless of outdoors or ventilation.
2 replies 7 retweets 65 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
I have repeatedly asked for anyone to write a theory of how predominantly droplet transmission would explain the facts of the world as we observe it, and remain open to it, starting with why outdoors and ventilation matters. Aerosols as main route fit the known facts very well.
7 replies 13 retweets 108 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
So "close-range" is a measure of distance, NOT a mode of transmission NOR the size of the particles enveloping the virus, and there is an empirically well-supported theory that fits all the known facts very well: that transmission is predominately airborne via inhaled aerosols.
4 replies 20 retweets 92 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
Yes, the key operative word is inhalation (portal of entry) not physical characteristic (droplet, aerosol, etc.). Risk comes from virus in inhalable form.
2 replies 4 retweets 20 likes -
-
Replying to @zeynep @ProfCharlesHaas and
How do you mean? Mitigate by (1) preventing or limiting spread / release from sources (masks, vaccines, testing), (2) filtering / sanitizing air in enclosed spaces and (3) preventing inhalation by susceptible (masks)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @macroliter @ProfCharlesHaas and
Only certain size particles can float around and concentrate with time rather than dropping immediately with gravity, and thus be susceptible to ventilation and indoor & outdoor differences, and indeed be inhaled. Droplets… drop. Mitigations for floating things aren’t the same.
3 replies 11 retweets 46 likes
In fact, that is exactly the heart of the issue and why all this matters so much. Otherwise less crucial.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
Exactly, which was the point of the original post. By
@WHO distributing those gappy cloth masks, they are implying they are safe. When we KNOW that they are not safe against the floating things (aerosols) that DOMINATE transmission and go through the gaps of such masks.2 replies 11 retweets 51 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @zeynep and
I'm sure someone did a study on this.....oh hang on it was Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
@CUH_NHS Now peer reviewed! https://elifesciences.org/articles/71131 pic.twitter.com/2oV5nb4uYU
1 reply 5 retweets 19 likes - 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.