And an exercise you might want to assign to your students..use reasonable estimates of interpersonal distances and idealized geometries of mouth, nose, eye openings and and show how infection by ballistic droplets can be significant driver of the pandemic.
-
-
Replying to @PrasadKasibhat1 @kprather88 and
If you can tell me what the geometries, frequencies, and durations of interaction are… I'll still think that this is the single weakest argument for aerosol transmission. I do think there are strong arguments, though.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Merz @PrasadKasibhat1 and
PS, you're asking me to do something outside my expertise. I was asking Dr. Prather do do something very basic, within her area of expertise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Merz @kprather88 and
I thought you were an expert in interpersonal distances based on some of your indoor vs outdoor comments to
@jljcolorado! And if you are not an expert in aerosol/droplet physics, makes me wonder about basis of your arguments on this thread.1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @PrasadKasibhat1 @kprather88 and
Again, why not go with Dr. Jimenez's argument-by-anecdote? He was making quantitiative claims based on his personal impressions of what people do outside.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Merz @kprather88 and
@jljcolorado actually addressed that..pic.twitter.com/PzLMSUOhbY
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @PrasadKasibhat1 @kprather88 and
"10-20% more" is meaningless. Frequency, duration, geometry, admixture.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Merz @PrasadKasibhat1 and
It's a quantitative claim. 2x vs. 20x. If it's not totally made up, he did not provide any pointers to where the model is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Merz @PrasadKasibhat1 and
Perhaps you know, and can provide a link.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Merz @PrasadKasibhat1 and
Prof. Jose-Luis Jimenez Retweeted Prof. Jose-Luis Jimenez
I made quantitative arguments, but you chose to ignore them. E.g. here, droplets reach 1m talking, 2 under heavier breathing. US conversational distance is 0.5-1m. It's all in the thread I sent you, and you ignored.https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1292893416469090304 …
Prof. Jose-Luis Jimenez added,
Prof. Jose-Luis JimenezVerified account @jljcolorado48/ PS: forgot to include, figure from a more detailed study (https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0021427 …) reaching conclusions similar to Tweets 37-38. Droplets need to be >300 um to reach across 1 m efficiently. Consistent with https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360132320302183 … pic.twitter.com/4j0qUbypJrShow this thread3 replies 2 retweets 31 likes
zeynep tufekci Retweeted zeynep tufekci
Also hello, since I’m still tagged. There’s tons of research on this. It’s a rich area, decades of work.https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1473089532920844289 …
zeynep tufekci added,
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
Also outdoor still without superspreading despite many crowded evening events. Sunlight theory doesn’t fit. Also ventilation matters indoors—shouldn’t if mainly droplets. And plexiglass is associated with worse outcomes. Makes no sense for droplets but was predicted for aerosols.
3 replies 2 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @jljcolorado and
So point me to the source of the 2x figure that Dr. Jimenez points to comes from.pic.twitter.com/75yWR0jVwp
1 reply 0 retweets 0 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.