Those arguments are a lot stronger. I agree.
-
-
Replying to @Merz @nausheenrshah and
And we are 100% (or nearly so) in agreement re. broadly deployed mitigations.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Merz @jljcolorado and
Ok. But again with the qualifier!! What do you not agree with?
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @nausheenrshah @jljcolorado and
I think we might disagree about the importance of droplet mitigations *in addition* to aerosol mitigations (some of which overlap) in congregate and clinical settings. I don't think the half-assed droplet mitigations in, e.g., supermarkets, can make any difference at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Merz @nausheenrshah and
But we clearly are in lockstep on aerosols. Prior to omicron I'd say that aerosol transmission might have been a major but *perhaps* not dominant mode of transmission. With omicron I'm satisfied that the vast majority of transmission must be airborne.
11 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @Merz @nausheenrshah and
so you get to say you were right before about it not being airborne, now using the transmissibility of O to save face and all of a sudden NOW it’s airborne. Just admit you were wrong the first time. Lots of people were wrong. Like you!
5 replies 1 retweet 36 likes -
Replying to @marer_stephen @Merz and
I don’t mind the walk-back, the scientists who were making these points from the earliest should, at a minimum, get people to be polite to them and appreciate how much crap they endured—actually owed an apology. Being wrong *and* condescending into almost 2022. That isn’t okay.
1 reply 6 retweets 80 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @marer_stephen and
Alex isn’t a good foil for you or a “walk back.” He hasn’t been arguing against airborne. The misconception I object to is one widely held among public & even some “experts” : that SARS2 infectivity doesn’t decay with distance & time from a point source. It’s a virus. Not magic.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @macroliter @zeynep and
Jeremy Kamil Retweeted World Health Organization (WHO)
In fact WHO seems pretty on target
with their recent messaging. Hope you agree.
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1473387274159149063 …Jeremy Kamil added,
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @macroliter @marer_stephen and
Yes, definitely better but still convoluted. Direct phrasing is better, and a correction cannot be whispered. The frustration is how long it took to get even here I’ve literally been in meetings with them where similar language had been proposed as phrasing. LONG AGO.
3 replies 2 retweets 42 likes
There were many phrasing solutions proposed, to get around the various egos and people who cannot admit they’re wrong (yes, I know what I’m talking about) and even the uncertainty, to encompass concerns. It’s a historic responsibility, people have to rise to the moment.
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.