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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
It is progress but also gaslighting that they've said it all along. I was on the meeting where the
@WHO experts yelled at us for suggesting airborne, and told us instead to "wash our hands fanatically".4 replies 8 retweets 82 likes -
Replying to @jljcolorado @zeynep and
I get the sense that you’re somehow disappointed that they aren’t still insisting it’s droplets and hand washing. That you’d be happier and feel more important if they were still “gaslighting”. Again, the sanctimony is rich in the air.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @macroliter @jljcolorado and
As I said, everyone I know who worked at this would be happy if they did the correct explanation and the correct mitigation bundle in a direct way, because the confusion is real. Two years in, but here we are. I’m all fine with handwashing, there’s always norovirus etc. anyway.
2 replies 1 retweet 20 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
Since you have no involvement you don’t know the history. These people got yelled at. Tons of efforts got rebuffed. People got shut out for no reason. Many intermediate phrasings were suggested—whatever works as long as the explanation was clear and mitigations correctly bundled.
3 replies 0 retweets 24 likes
Anyway, history of this is clear, the science has made a lot of progress, the papers address all the points raised in the thread. Maybe next pandemic, they will not shut out the relevant scientists for no evidentiary reason, and react faster. That’s the only reason for all this.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @macroliter and
"They" won't. That is the central lesson of this pandemic. To take an orthogonal example, look at testing. Look at vaccine equity. Or to take an even bigger step, look at climate change.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yes
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.