Thread by @minesoh

I think it is not appropriate for a scientist to "argue" in the atmosphere without defining the terms properly👶
I think it is a kind of agitator. I strongly believe that this is an unacceptable attitude for an information provider.

This is a collection of tips from the WHO on vaccine reporting, but I think it can be applied to all scientific reporting and scientific information dissemination, not just vaccines👶
who.int/news-room/feat…

Are you easily using terms like "airborne" without defining them? In order to convey a concept accurately, the term needs to be well defined👶 I don't know the definition of "aerosol infection", but it can be defined without dividing by particle size. Let's define the term!

Traditionally and historically, there is a definition for airborne infection. And the definition of airborne infection is also linked to infection prevention methods in infection control science. Rather than using the term carelessly, let's define it well👶

Many papers use the word easily without clarifying the definition. Recently, even the CDC has not clarified the definition. A lazy word can only lead to lazy science👶

The first step would be to carefully explain the concept and make sure it is conveyed correctly. To do this, again, defining the terms is the first step. Don't get agitated by words used in a lazy mood！👶

So, caution and warning to all👶！
Beware of discourses that use words like #Airborne without defining them. Only when it is defined can it be discussed and alerted.

For #airborne infections, the general definition is the one in the upper black arrow in this figure. The blue arrows below indicate that there is no uniform definition for infection by a suspended particle in the air．

The WHO document that serves as a representative example of a source of information for the definition of traditional #airborne infection is this👶
apps.who.int/iris/bitstream…

I am certain that there is such a thing as infection by ”drifting droplet particles in the air”. The route of infection is not only by large droplets flying directly at you. It's important to define the concept correctly👶

I have never said that there is no such thing as infection by retained particles. I never said that👶
However, I am saying that airborne infection is the main route would not be correct. "#Airborne" is an old definition.

I don't agree with saying anything without ”re-defining" the term "#airborne infection"👶
Let's define the term!

Discussion is welcome!
But first things first, define your terms!
There are a lot of papers out there where the terms are not defined, so be careful !👶