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?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Merz @jljcolorado and
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.
1 reply 3 retweets 45 likes -
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 -
I beg to differ, if you look at the physics, both that and the impact of ventilation are impossible to explain with ballistic droplets.
3 replies 3 retweets 58 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @Merz and
Indeed. Gravity is the same indoors and outdoors, the difference can be this big if floating particles rather than ballistic ones are driving transmission. Sunlight can matter, but as Jose says, basic science of it says it can't be that big. I repeat: open to a theory that fits.
4 replies 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
Need a theory of observed epidemiology that fits physics, virology, mitigations and their results. I've yet to encounter one on it being mainly droplets—close contact being important fits both theories, but little else does. (Where is all the close contact outdoors transmission?)
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
Has it ever occurred to you that there just isn't enough evidence to decide? The over certainty of some of the covid social media influencers drives me crazy. I guess you don't get a lot of followers when you say "we just don't know yet."
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @twitskeptic @jljcolorado and
I guess it just hasn't occurred to you that I've been working on this for two years, and besides multiple lengthy public-facing articles in Atlantic, New York Times, etc, I've co-authored directly-relevant peer-reviewed work on this in The Lancet, Science, PNAS, BMJ?
4 replies 1 retweet 35 likes
The question of what makes you so certain about me that I'm a "social media influencer" out to get followers on topics I don't know much about, is left to the reader as exercise.
-
-
-
Replying to @Merz @twitskeptic and
Nah, I don't need more time—it couldn't have been more telling than the past two years.
I'm good, thanks. Similarly, MDs on WHO committees *yelled* at the aerosol scientists on this thread, but time has spoken there as well. Not everyone with degrees can do good science.
1 reply 0 retweets 28 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.