3 ms·

I'm really glad that federal regulations aren't being written and published in 2 days. Now three years? I think it was early 2022 when the CDC finally changed t

I'm really glad that federal regulations aren't being written and published in 2 days. Now three years? I think it was early 2022 when the CDC finally changed their opinion to be that Covid-19 was transmitted via aerosolized particles, so it's about a year or so after that for this to be published? I don't think that's horrible by government standards.

sp332 3y ago
It wasn't about caution. It was ignoring evidence from less-prestigious sources and sheer pig-headedness. The disconnect was there even in the use of scientific terms. Infection-control experts have long drawn a hard line between droplet viruses and airborne ones, seeing only the latter as capable of travelling far and lingering in the air. “Dogmatic bias is certainly a big part of it,” says Don Milton, an occupational-health physician who studies aerosol transmission of infectious diseases in a commentary by members of the IPC GDG, ... The authors dismissed research using air-flow modelling, case reports describing possible airborne transmission and summaries of evidence for airborne transmission, labelling such reports “opinion pieces”. Instead, they concluded that “SARS-CoV-2 is not spread by the airborne route to any significant extent”. The cautious thing would be to encourage masking and improved ventilation. Still, other health organizations moved faster than the WHO despite the uncertainty. In February 2020, ... At Li’s suggestion, he says, the centre recommended maximizing airflow in buildings from the outside, to help flush out any airborne contagion. At the time, Li didn’t think that ventilation would substantially reduce infection ... “I always support a precautionary approach,” he says. https://archive.is/91nol https://archive.is/91nol FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. - WHO, March 2020 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898

sp332 3y ago

It wasn't about caution. It was ignoring evidence from less-prestigious sources and sheer pig-headedness. The disconnect was there even in the use of scientific terms. Infection-control experts have long drawn a hard line between droplet viruses and airborne ones, seeing only the latter as capable of travelling far and lingering in the air. “Dogmatic bias is certainly a big part of it,” says Don Milton, an occupational-health physician who studies aerosol transmission of infectious diseases in a commentary by members of the IPC GDG, ... The authors dismissed research using air-flow modelling, case reports describing possible airborne transmission and summaries of evidence for airborne transmission, labelling such reports “opinion pieces”. Instead, they concluded that “SARS-CoV-2 is not spread by the airborne route to any significant extent”. The cautious thing would be to encourage masking and improved ventilation. Still, other health organizations moved faster than the WHO despite the uncertainty. In February 2020, ... At Li’s suggestion, he says, the centre recommended maximizing airflow in buildings from the outside, to help flush out any airborne contagion. At the time, Li didn’t think that ventilation would substantially reduce infection ... “I always support a precautionary approach,” he says. https://archive.is/91nol https://archive.is/91nol FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne. - WHO, March 2020 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898 https://twitter.com/who/status/1243972193169616898