1/ After trying to debate this aerosol vs. droplet question for so long, it seems to me that the droplet defense it is 101% about N95 in hospitals. Other arguments are made for rhetorical reasons: because the debate is public, other arguments are needed for credible defense.
2/ But when challenging the other arguments nobody seems to bother to defend them. And nobody makes an effort to try to explain how droplet dominance could explain huge outdoor vs. Indoor difference, superspreading, ventilation etc.
3/ Nobody bothers to provide arguments in favor of droplets (docs.google.com/presentation/d…). If they are so dominant, shouldn't be hard to provide evidence?
All real arguments seem to be based on N95 in hospitals.
All real arguments seem to be based on N95 in hospitals.
4/ But stalling on recognition of aerosols makes it much more difficult for people in community to protect themselves.
Don't understand: resist masks.
No attn to ventil.
Teachers: no HEPA bc CDC does not rec., says droplets
So... more cases... and need more PPE in hospitals!
Don't understand: resist masks.
No attn to ventil.
Teachers: no HEPA bc CDC does not rec., says droplets
So... more cases... and need more PPE in hospitals!
