Thread by @jljcolorado

1/ A year ago, @WHO started propagating an enormous error.

Now we know that #COVIDisAirborne, and that surface transmission is low and large droplet transmission is minor.

But @WHO has yet admit this clearly, which continues to create great confusion.

https://twitter.com/mvankerkhove/status/1241830233101275137

2/ @WHO & most national authorities continue to NOT explain clearly how virus is transmitted (like an invisible smoke that we exhale and inhale).

As prominent German virologist @c_drosten has said multiple times, most important is to tell the public

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1306968222059520000

3/ @WHO admitted that there are ZERO cases proven of surface transmission. Scientific community agrees it is unlikely. @Nature is basically yelling at @WHO to say it clearly.

@WHO has NOT clarified that surfaces are minor. Lots of disinfection waste.

nature.com/articles/d4158…

4/ Large droplet transmission, with projectiles that either hit the other person and fall to the ground, has been promoted by @WHO as the main mode of transmission:

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1244258441880797184

5/ There is only one small problem with large droplets: that's not how physics work, and @WHO is making enormous errors in the physics it describes in its briefs

I explain here that they are making an error the size of Godzilla

@WHO refuses to update

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1295518786951319552

6/ It has been obvious for many months that COVID is mainly airborne.

Airborne like tuberculosis, which transmit mostly in close proximity. Does not always transmit in shared room air, only sometimes with low ventilation, crowding etc., and at times outbreaks.

7/ Airborne like measles, although much less contagious than measles under most circumstances. So that it is not as obvious as measles

But measles was not obvious. Most public health spent 75 yrs telling us it was droplet / surfaces, as recently as 1985:

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/75/4/6…

8/ What evidence is there that #COVIDisAirborne?

It is overwhelming. Some of the clearest evidence is from superspreading events, when one person infects 20, 40, 50... Surfaces transmit little, droplets v unlikely.

Not "minor": 10-20% of infected transmit to 80% of new cases

9/ One of the clearest superspreading cases IMHO is the choir that we investigated. 1 person infected 52, no chance for surfaces or droplets.

Yet some in PH have tried to muddy the waters. But they are clear, just read the supp. info. in the paper.

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1306450428867964930

10/ More recently, the obvious airborne transmission cases in quarantine hotels in New Zealand and Australia, with camera footage showing what people did, are even clearer:

https://twitter.com/DamianTheAussie/status/1356040350075240448

11/ The cases in Australia are also clear.

https://twitter.com/DrZoeHyde/status/1365622964494868482

12/ Droplet proponents keep saying: but most transmission is in close proximity, and that's droplets, not aerosols.

WRONG. How can aerosols infect in a room with low ventilation, and not be MUCH more concentrated in close proximity?

13/ Physics has been showing for a while that ease of transmission in close proximity is most likely a sign that a disease is airborne, rather than disproving airborne.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

14/ And a pearl on the same paper: large droplet transmission has NEVER been demonstrated directly for ANY disease in the entire history of medicine.

Let that sink in: not just COVID, but ANY disease. Yet @WHO jumped to conclusions w/o evidence.

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

15/ More evidence that #COVIDisAirborne: 20 times more likely to get infected indoors than outdoors.

Large droplets not affected by I vs. O. Aerosols (airborne) affected hugely

If 50/50 D/A, transmission would go down by 1/2. But goes down MUCH more.

https://twitter.com/mugecevik/status/1308080074986524672

16/ So where is @WHO after all this evidence?

A year ago they told us that airborne transmission was "misinformation", and that we needed to help @WHO fight it.

(Note tweet is still online. They haven't removed it, or more importantly, said it is WRONG)

https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1243972193169616898

17/ In July 2020, after our letter to @WHO signed by 239 scientists, they moved a little.

Aerosols no longer "misinformation" as in March, but "theories," "hypotheses"... "A person could inhale aerosols... however..."

Making them sound quite unlikely

who.int/publications/i…

18/ In Nov. 2020, @WHO through @DrMariaNeira and @mvankerkhove say that ventilation is VERY important

But no word of why. Ventilation does NOT matter for surfaces or larger droplets.

If ventilation v. important... aerosols are!

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1323279393725194240

19/ In Jan. 2021, finally official @WHO documents start to describe aerosols as a real route of transmission, although still getting the science wrong and downplaying it.

who.int/publications/i…

20/ @WHO has yet to admit, or modify, enormous error they have been making, saying that aerosols are smaller than 5 microns (tweet 17), without any references to the scientific literature.

Science tells us, since 1934, that aerosols < 100 microns, not 5.

academic.oup.com/aje/article-ab…

21/ But who cares about 5 vs. 100 microns anyway? Shouldn't we focus on practical stuff?

Apparently @WHO cares. Because they realize that if they admit their huge error, whole house of cards of "droplet transmission" comes crashing down

Real physics:

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1292880342227984385

22/ It was last Aug. 2020 that I last found scientists making an honest effort to engage about the evidence of whether it is airborne or not.

Yet many continue to repeat debunked myths, such as "R0 not high enough", "proximity proves droplets" etc.

journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-…

23/ Why does @WHO move so slowly and resist admitting that mostly, #COVIDisAirborne?

An important reason is historical bias. For 110 years they've believed close prox == droplets, and airborne is almost impossible (only few rare diseases). #DropletDogma

archive.org/details/source…

24/ Since 1910 public health authorities started favoring the #DropletDogma and disfavoring airborne transmission.

Note that this error already played out in the 1918 flu, making it worse than it could have been. Chicago accepted airborne, did better.

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1373212120171610120

25/ So COVID-19 is not the first pandemic in which the response is made worse by the #DropletDogma and the denial of airborne transmission, it is at least the second one...

26/ But this couldn't possibly be the case, some people ask?

Well, one needs to look no further than the composition of the @WHO IPC committee, that decides how COVID-19 is transmitted.

ZERO aerosol experts. ZERO. ZILCH. But 6 handwashing experts.

who.int/publications/i…

27/ Why ZERO aerosol experts in the committee that decides how COVID-19 is transmitted?

Because #DropletDogma reigned supreme, and when that committee was formed, airborne transmission was considered so unlikely that aerosol experts were not needed.

They make enormous errors...

28/ Is history the only reason why @WHO refuses to admit clearly that #COVIDisAirborne?

No. They also have practical concerns of mask availability etc.

But many remedies easy and cheap: explain it, do things outside, open windows, adjust mask fit, measure CO2...

29/ @WHO should explain the science. Then people can protect themselves.

And how to get to the remedies becomes a practical problem. Which like developing vaccines quickly, can be done. "Where there is a will, there is a way."

30/ It would seem that for key @WHO ppl, NOT admitting that they were wrong about aerosols and saving face is in itself a large motivation

But this face saving is costing many thousands of lives, health consequences, billions in economic losses...

I hope I am wrong about this.

31/ How will this end?

Scientifically, this is a classic paradigm shift.

"Scientists faced w/ failing theory “devise numerous articulations & ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict”

Will be accepted, w/ time.

https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1295527376533647361

32/ But more importantly, what about controlling the pandemic?

We are still facing too few vaccines in most countries, and increasingly transmissible & deadly UK (& likely also Brazilian) variants.

It depends on you all. We can force change, but it will take sustained pressure

33/ Remember Margaret Mead. The pandemic has made it extraordinarily obvious that this is how the world really advances:

" Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

34/ My uncle was road engineer, working directly for politicians. He told me in 1990:

"Jose, politicians care about 3 things:

1) Advancing their own political career
2) Advancing interests of their party
3) If out of #1 and #2, something good comes out for people, we'll use it"

35/ So please get involved. Not just retweet. Tell others. Email, call, write to your local, regional, national government. Ask questions. Ask questions when @WHO organizes their #AskWHO sessions on Twitter etc.

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

36/ Also encourage local journalists/media to report on this. They can help generate awareness/pressure among state/county health departments, state government, city councils, etc.

HT @MarcelHarmon1

#WHORetractNow

37/ Many ppl are more concerned about their national or regional authorities, or their school, company etc.

But although @WHO can't force anyone to do anything, in much of the world it works as an "intellectual dictatorship." Whatever @WHO says, local authorities say.