This this this this this.
To elaborate slightly.
The whole "is it airborne" and "droplets vs aerosols" debate is a case of technical jargon impeding public understanding.
"Airborne" for the purposes of hospital infection prevention is not the same as "airborne" as a risk communication message.
The whole "is it airborne" and "droplets vs aerosols" debate is a case of technical jargon impeding public understanding.
"Airborne" for the purposes of hospital infection prevention is not the same as "airborne" as a risk communication message.
When the average layperson hears "airborne", they're not thinking "now I must revert to aerosol IPC protocols."
They're thinking "oh, so I get it by breathing it in, not just surface contact."
"Droplets" does not convey that idea effectively.
They're thinking "oh, so I get it by breathing it in, not just surface contact."
"Droplets" does not convey that idea effectively.
It's hard to explain why everyone needs to be masking while simultaneously saying "it's not airborne."
Less airborne than measles? For sure. Substantially less risk of airborne transmission outdoors than indoors? Absolutely.
Less airborne than measles? For sure. Substantially less risk of airborne transmission outdoors than indoors? Absolutely.
But if we want the public at large to understand that infectious virus can be transmitted through the air over *some* meaningful distance - which is pretty hard to dispute at this point, esp indoors - then "droplets, not airborne" doesn't cut it as a public-facing message.
Can't explain the WA choral practice, Korean call center, Korean nightclubs, Lansing bar, etc etc without some degree of airborne-esque transmission.
So rather than tie ourselves in knots over terminology, we should just say that it is functionally airborne in indoor settings.
So rather than tie ourselves in knots over terminology, we should just say that it is functionally airborne in indoor settings.
