Nothing in that thread explains why you'd expect outdoor transmission to drop by only 2x if the mechanism is droplet transmission.
-
-
Replying to @Merz @jljcolorado and
Among other things, people tend to be further apart outdoors, and they tend to be outdoors when it's sunny. Pyrimidine dimers are a thing.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Merz @kprather88 and
I have not found data to substantiate that the conversational distance is higher outdoors than outdoors. And UV radiation inactivates the virus, but in 5-30 min, too slow too matter.
6 replies 3 retweets 97 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @kprather88 and
Halftimes far shorter than 5-30 minutes have been reported.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Merz @jljcolorado and
"I have not found data to substantiate that the conversational distance is higher outdoors than outdoors." And that's just silly.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Merz @jljcolorado and
What this tells me is that rather than talking forthrightly about uncertainties in your interpretation, you are more than willing to simply assert that they are not uncertainties.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Merz @kprather88 and
I have talked a lot about uncertainties. Have looked for such data for a long time, and I have observed the distance myself, and not seen a clear difference. But let's say that there is 10-20% more distance. Would that cut transmission x20? That's not plausible.
2 replies 0 retweets 46 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @Merz and
Off the top of my head, why would ventilation matter indoors if it were mainly droplets, as ballistic particles, same behaviour. Why would plexiglass—which would block droplets—be associated with *higher* rates of infection, as predicted from aerosols, via ventilation dead zones.
2 replies 8 retweets 72 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
Why would HEPA filters work? They aren't between you and the person you are speaking with, should be irrelevant for droplets. How could there be so much overdispersion with a mainly droplet, thus, ballistic trajectory, particles?
3 replies 5 retweets 51 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
I'm not arguing against aerosol transmission, Zeynep, as you'd know if you'd read the thread. I'm persuaded that aerosol transmission occurs and that it is a significant component of total transmission. But the evidence that transmission is only or mainly aerosol is weak.
7 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
I don't think there is any way to avoid "mainly" aerosol transmission and fit the known facts and physics. The indoor/outdoor difference in epi, the ventilation matters indoors data, HEPA filter role, the overdispersed dynamics... Other mainly airborne diseases look like this.
-
-
Alternative would require some evidence, and a framework that fits known facts. I am open to one, including one where aerosols aren't predominant or "mainly." But none has come up, and I've been looking, either from the data or as even a "for example" framework.
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
The indoor/outdoor difference is an absurdly weak argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.