A few thoughts on the “airborne" conversations right now…First, I ultimately think this comes down more to scicomm & our ability to communicate nuanced situations & data. How we approach airborne vs droplet is antiquated & even more so in how we communicate it… (1/x)
So much of this really plays into healthcare infection control where these situations are approached extremely different. In the community, as @apoorva_nyc @BillHanage emphasized, it's really the indoor, close setting that sees the super-sreader events involving aerosols (2/x)
I especially appreciate conversations with @JeremyKonyndyk about how this is communicated outside of healthcare (we get really stuck in these terms) and loved @dan_diekema's awesome SPAT vs CAT blog (bit.ly/2O3gk2k) approach to give it a newer context (4/x)
This conversation has emphasized a lot of the differences in how epidemiologists/infection preventionists/physicians approach this topic vs aerobiologists/engineers. The siloing actually does more damage and I think we should try & work towards better terms/scicomm (5/x)
Ultimately, I think the letter and these conversations point to our need to communicate and update old terms/processes better, but the guidance is similar - wear a mask, be mindful of the environment you're in and the activities you're engaging in + duration. (7/x)
This topic will always be heated as it has implications, especially in healthcare settings. I'm grateful for those awesome folks who engage in these convos, seeking to drive change while being mindful of how we communicate the nuances of disease transmission right now (8/8).
Adding @apoorva_nyc’s reminder
