Droplets didn't get breathed in at the start of this ... so we're making progress.
They fell to the ground 2m* and we coughed them into each others' faces and poked them into our eyes.
(Coupon valid for droplets flying 2 m in Canada. 1 m at @WHO and elsewhere. 1.5 m in various other countries. Please check local laws before redeeming.)
Resp drops + touch.
You would not say wear a mask if distance cannot be maintained if droplets.
There's a better one with arrows straight to the ground but I can't find it.
Breathed in, eh?
Hmm, I ain't seein' it on this.
Here's the famous one. Nothing about breathed.
So let's stop with the lies, okay?
Just admit, we now know it's in the smaller particles that linger (which is EXACTLY what CDC said, as a half-way measure because they still refer to droplets) and let's get on with this thing.
Yes, we know it stings ego to be wrong (if you let it). Get over it. In a hurry.
Here is the March 2020 guidance from WHO which says mouth and nose "exposed" to droplets.
No inhalation mentioned.
If there is any inhalation going on, they are being darned circumspect about it, and hiding that they linger, so I call false on "breathed in"
"With SARS-CoV, viral RNA as well as viable (culturable) virus has been found in air samples.95,96 Therefore, SARS-CoV..potentially..transmitted by short- and long-range aerosols ...as strongly implicated by several studies"
Now with the new variants, more than ever before the game is not to catch this until vaccinated. No indoors. Good good mask. If indoor good good ventilation. Stay safe.
HCW in good masks throughout if you can, and sorry if institutions fight you on it.
Two meters IS NOT protective. Assume your neighbors in the room are smoking and if you can smell it you're at risk.
It is becoming clearer that you only need to inhale VERY FEW virus particles to have a chance at being infected and whether you are is a throw of the dice as to whether virus particle catches. As expected, variants prob bind tighter and fewer of them needed for one to catch ...
All you need to know about the strident defence of certain threads on here by members of the @WHO is that the two parties have a working relationship.
I posted the above, because of the outrageousness of this post.
My comment, which I'll repost so I don't drag others into this thread:
"Seeing this was unbelievable. Supporting a thread by suggesting anyone against it is attacking in bad faith, AND has been warned, AND that they've been spoken to and have not listened.