3 ms·

> The original claim I responded to was that the medical establishment claimed airborne transmission was impossible. The WHO literally made a blanket statement

> The original claim I responded to was that the medical establishment claimed airborne transmission was impossible. The WHO literally made a blanket statement that Covid was NOT airborne. > FACT: COVID-19 is NOT airborne. The CDC also denied airborne spread for quite some time. >As the pandemic unfolded last year, infectious disease experts warned for months that both the C.D.C. and the World Health Organization were overlooking research that strongly suggested the coronavirus traveled aloft in small, airborne particles. Several scientists on Friday welcomed the agency’s scrapping of the term “close contact,” which they criticized as vague and said did not necessarily capture the nuances of aerosol transmission. “C.D.C. has now caught up to the latest scientific evidence, and they’ve gotten rid of some old problematic terms and thinking about how transmission occurs,” said Linsey Marr, an aerosol expert at Virginia Tech. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/health/coronavirus-airborne-threat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/07/health/coronavirus-airbor... The CDC's flip flopping on the issue did not inspire confidence. >CDC reverses again, now says Covid-19 is 'sometimes' airborne https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-reverses-again-now-says-covid-19-sometimes-airborne-n1242167 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-reverses-agai...

loeg 3y ago
The 4-word tweet (from March 2020) is clearly an oversimplification for people who are only willing to read 4 words. They're talking about their (wrong) belief that airborne transmission was not a significant vector, at a population level. If you read charitably and look at their longer, contemporaneous statements, they say things like airborne spread is possible in some limited situations but not believed to be a significant vector of spread at a population level. (Still wrong, but a lot more nuanced.) March 2020 was the first month the disease was declared a pandemic; it was very early on. We had a broad call to recognize airborne spread by July. It's worth skimming something like https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020 https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments... .
- eastbound 3y ago
  > clearly an oversimplification for people who are only willing to read 4 words It’s a lie. There are no excuses. It’s false.
  - fknorangesite 3y ago
    People can be wrong without lying.
    - eastbound 3y ago
      Authority sources should shut up if they don’t know. You cannot say “Dreyfus is guilty” if you haven’t studied the subject. If an institution has credit, it’s because they have a proven track of not saying total bullshit. The same for the president of France who said “Please go to the theaters to fight against the Covid”. He knew it was contagious, so he was giving the order to people to infect themselves, wrapped in a lie. If they can say the opposite of truth, without having conducted proper studies and acknowledged what was obvious to everyone, then they are directly responsible for harming the public. The WHO should be dissoluted.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > The 4-word tweet (from March 2020) is clearly an oversimplification for people who are only willing to read 4 words. I'm not sure why you would make such a misguided claim. >Two years after the pandemic began, we finally have a good understanding of how COVID-19 is transmitted: some infected people exhale virus in small, invisible particles (aerosols). These do not fall quickly to the ground, but move in the air like cigarette smoke. Other people can get infected when breathing in those aerosols, either in close proximity, in shared room air, or less frequently, at a distance. But the journey to accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence of how COVID-19 spread was far too slow and contentious. Even today, the updated guidance and policies of how to protect ourselves remain haphazardly applied https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-confusion/ https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-conf...

loeg 3y ago

The 4-word tweet (from March 2020) is clearly an oversimplification for people who are only willing to read 4 words. They're talking about their (wrong) belief that airborne transmission was not a significant vector, at a population level. If you read charitably and look at their longer, contemporaneous statements, they say things like airborne spread is possible in some limited situations but not believed to be a significant vector of spread at a population level. (Still wrong, but a lot more nuanced.) March 2020 was the first month the disease was declared a pandemic; it was very early on. We had a broad call to recognize airborne spread by July. It's worth skimming something like https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments-in-2020 https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid19-developments... .

eastbound 3y ago
> clearly an oversimplification for people who are only willing to read 4 words It’s a lie. There are no excuses. It’s false.
- fknorangesite 3y ago
  People can be wrong without lying.
  - eastbound 3y ago
    Authority sources should shut up if they don’t know. You cannot say “Dreyfus is guilty” if you haven’t studied the subject. If an institution has credit, it’s because they have a proven track of not saying total bullshit. The same for the president of France who said “Please go to the theaters to fight against the Covid”. He knew it was contagious, so he was giving the order to people to infect themselves, wrapped in a lie. If they can say the opposite of truth, without having conducted proper studies and acknowledged what was obvious to everyone, then they are directly responsible for harming the public. The WHO should be dissoluted.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> The 4-word tweet (from March 2020) is clearly an oversimplification for people who are only willing to read 4 words. I'm not sure why you would make such a misguided claim. >Two years after the pandemic began, we finally have a good understanding of how COVID-19 is transmitted: some infected people exhale virus in small, invisible particles (aerosols). These do not fall quickly to the ground, but move in the air like cigarette smoke. Other people can get infected when breathing in those aerosols, either in close proximity, in shared room air, or less frequently, at a distance. But the journey to accepting the overwhelming scientific evidence of how COVID-19 spread was far too slow and contentious. Even today, the updated guidance and policies of how to protect ourselves remain haphazardly applied https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-confusion/ https://time.com/6162065/covid-19-airborne-transmission-conf...