5 ms·

There are multiple lines of evidence that suggest airborne transmission is the primary form of transmission. For example: https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/sta

There are multiple lines of evidence that suggest airborne transmission is the primary form of transmission. For example: https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/1253725881018826753?s=19 https://twitter.com/JeremyKonyndyk/status/125372588101882675...

virusduck 6y ago
"Lines of evidence" and "twitter.com" do not belong in the same sentence. If there's something of substance in a tweet, link the substance.
- smaddox 6y ago
  If this were an academic journal, I would. But this is a casual web forum.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    The setup of this whole thread is 'trustable data and scientific method'. Also, please be aware that a name is often not enough to show that a source is relatively trustworthy, some credentials can help; this is a worldwide forum.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  Surely that depends on whose tweets they are? If its Jeremy Konyndyk or Scott Gottlieb or such that's a pretty decent source. If it's a celebrity or political figure or some random person less so.
Symmetry 6y ago
It's precisely because of the way infections cluster in cases like that that we can tell that we're not seeing (much at least) long range airborne transmission. It this was a true aerosol like you see with chickenpox, measles, or TB you wouldn't be seeing such a nice separation as that. It looks like the furthest away you should be able to be infected someone is maybe 20 or 30 feet if you sneeze without covering your nose. That's the significance of Mr. Konyndyk talking about droplets rather than aerosols. Though it was a big deal in the original SARS outbreak that you could generate aerosols via intubation which caused some nurses wearing surgical masks to get sick in that outbreak.
- smaddox 6y ago
  Unfortunately, even talking and breathing generates micro-droplets that remain airborne for hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2azcn7MqOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2azcn7MqOU

virusduck 6y ago

"Lines of evidence" and "twitter.com" do not belong in the same sentence. If there's something of substance in a tweet, link the substance.

smaddox 6y ago
If this were an academic journal, I would. But this is a casual web forum.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  The setup of this whole thread is 'trustable data and scientific method'. Also, please be aware that a name is often not enough to show that a source is relatively trustworthy, some credentials can help; this is a worldwide forum.
Symmetry 6y ago
Surely that depends on whose tweets they are? If its Jeremy Konyndyk or Scott Gottlieb or such that's a pretty decent source. If it's a celebrity or political figure or some random person less so.

Symmetry 6y ago

It's precisely because of the way infections cluster in cases like that that we can tell that we're not seeing (much at least) long range airborne transmission. It this was a true aerosol like you see with chickenpox, measles, or TB you wouldn't be seeing such a nice separation as that. It looks like the furthest away you should be able to be infected someone is maybe 20 or 30 feet if you sneeze without covering your nose. That's the significance of Mr. Konyndyk talking about droplets rather than aerosols. Though it was a big deal in the original SARS outbreak that you could generate aerosols via intubation which caused some nurses wearing surgical masks to get sick in that outbreak.

smaddox 6y ago
Unfortunately, even talking and breathing generates micro-droplets that remain airborne for hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2azcn7MqOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2azcn7MqOU