1/ Continuing errors in image used to discuss modes of transmission
This image (frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…) was shown multiple times by different presenters at WHO webinar a few hours ago. Nobody seemed to remark on large errors there, which continue to propagate misconceptions
This image (frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…) was shown multiple times by different presenters at WHO webinar a few hours ago. Nobody seemed to remark on large errors there, which continue to propagate misconceptions
2/ First, cutpoint of falling to ground (droplets) vs. floating and being inhalable (aerosols) is ~50 um, not 5 um.
Second, image gives impression that close proximity infection is all droplets. Aerosols only seem to infect at long range. Totally incorrect.
Second, image gives impression that close proximity infection is all droplets. Aerosols only seem to infect at long range. Totally incorrect.
3/ Aerosol infect best at close proximity. See medscape.com/viewarticle/93… for further details and references. And see this corrected image.
4/ PS: when I bring up the fact that the 5 um cutoff defies the laws of physics, I often hear crickets from "the other side." Sound like if some people thought "microns, schmicrons", not important at all.
Remember that if 5 um = squirrel, 50 um = elephant. VERY different motion!
Remember that if 5 um = squirrel, 50 um = elephant. VERY different motion!
5/ This error is to an aerosol scientist what it would be to an ID physician if we confused a virus for a bacterium. (And then, when corrected, replied "microbe, schmicrobe.")
This stuff **does matter** to understand transmission, and it is not "theoretical" or "academic."
This stuff **does matter** to understand transmission, and it is not "theoretical" or "academic."
And actually, let me offer another improvement to the image, that reflects much better the levels of scientific certainty of both routes.
