Thread by @MikeOtsuka

The UK government's response to concerns regarding airborne Covid-19 transmission in courtrooms is alarming👇. It indicates that they're ignoring an increasing body of evidence of such transmission. 1/10
lawgazette.co.uk/news/dont-worr…

On 26 May, the UK government released a SAGE paper addressing airborne transmission (link👇). The paper itself is dated 28 April and based on research up to 26 April. Key excerpt👇. 2/10
gov.uk/government/pub…

Note that, unlike the government's letter to the CBA (see 1/10👆), this does NOT say that risk of airborne transmission is "extremely low". Rather, it says "Evidence for airborne transmission is limited and hard to get, and there is little quantitative data available". 3/10

The SAGE paper mentions the Chinese restaurant case study which @erinbromage also discusses in his widely read blog post👇. But various other case studies indicating airborne transmission go unmentioned. 4/10
erinbromage.com/post/the-risks…

There are a number of recent publications in scientific journals which state much stronger cases for airborne Covid-19 transmission than is indicated in either the SAGE paper or UK government guidance. 5/10

For example, this paper👇, published in Science on 27 May, DIRECTLY contradicts the UK government's claim (see 1/10👆) of "extremely low risk" of airborne Covid-19 transmission. 6/10
science.sciencemag.org/content/early/…

This paper also says there is increasing evidence that the 2 metre rule is insufficient in many indoor settings with poor ventilation. 7/10

2m social distancing is insufficient in such settings in which people spend more than brief periods of time. Properly fitted masks are also essential. 8/10

See also this new study, along very similar lines, which indicates that poor ventilation significantly increases risk of Covid-19 infection in small rooms and points to the need for high-performance face masks to prevent infection. 9/10
thelancet.com/journals/lance…

Finally, see this paper👇, which expresses deep concern over the "failure" of governments to "acknowledge the importance of airborne transmission and to take adequate actions against it"👇. 10/10
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

18 May SAGE paper on Public Transport (link👇), based on evidence up to 16 May, says "uncertainties over the generation of virus-containing small aerosol and infectious dose make it difficult to quantify the importance of airborne transmission"👇. 1/
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Again, unlike govt's letter to CBA (see 1/10👆), this does NOT say that risk of airborne transmission is "extremely low". Rather it speaks of uncertainties re likelihood of this means of transmission. Govt assertion of "extremely low" risk therefore appears ungrounded. 2/2

For fairly good evidence of airborne transmission beyond 2 metres, see this analysis👇of a case study involving an asymptomatic woman who infected 23 of 67 passengers who spent 100 minutes riding the same bus.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…