As Dr. Conly reminded us on Friday, when considering Airborne Transmission, "it's very important to take into consideration the very very complex environment".... "direction of airflow, the number of air changes, temperature, relative humidity... its veeery very complex"
2/
This is actually NOT "complex" for Aerosol scientists, mechanical engineers, building scientists, and other experts in fluid mechanics. Due to the Pandemic, these experts have diverted their brainpower to this problem. See summary of studies below.
3/
✅Groves says a presymptomatic person can cause a superspreader. ✅Wilson says people generate more aerosols then medical procedures
✅ Lednicky says the virus is viable in air.
✅ Chen says there's a higher chance of inhaling the virus than a droplet hitting you in the face.
4/
Chen used a model, reliant on the "basic science" of fluid mechanics, to analyze the probability of Aerosol transmission. Other indoor superspreader investigations modeled air flow and used video recordings to rule out close contact. They even infected some ferrets via air.
5/
Here's a summary of the "why we can't call it Airborne" excuses raised by the WHO in July 2020, and just some of the avalanche of studies that have been published since.
6/
The nosocomial infections is worth digging into further.
Many ID docs are now willing to admit that "Situational Airborne" is possible and that the virus is "inhaled".
But they will not budge on the IPAC guidelines to use Droplet Precautions (ie. surgical masks).
7/
They say, "But surgical masks have worked in MY hospital!"
Dr. Conly himself asserts that... but it is misleading.. see detailed thread here:
➡️ Hospitals have excellent ventilation, many new ones have 12 Air Changes per Hour! That's like being outside!
Just because surgical masks are working in your prestine conditions, doesn't mean they will work in a poorly ventilated LTC or school or factory!
9/
➡️ Just use logic... ignore the particle size for a second.
If you agree the virus is inhaled, and you can breath it into your nostrils and/or mouth... WHY would it not be able to make its way into your surgical #masknostrils??
10/
Now let's look at the studies... Klompas (an ID convert), has done some phenomenal work in this area. Get that man a 🏆.
Goldberg et al also have a very convincing study.
Oksanen and Shields both reveal those in ICU (w/ respirator) have a LOWER chance of infection!!
11/
And we have seen a very similar pattern in Quebec! Those with access to respirators and/or better ventilation systems are better off.
We don't need an RCT to know respirators are the precautionary/smart choice!
Occupational Hygienists study this! Other industries use them regularly to protect against inhaled hazardous aerosols! Think mining, construction, pesticides, etc.
Let's unpack Dr. Conly on the Precautionary Principle.
Q: Why weren't HCW provided N95s, given the advanced warning that SARS2 might be Airborne?
Conly: "I need to see a much higher level of evidence..."
(🤔 That's not how the Precautionary Principle works)
🧵 1/
He then makes a pretty bold claim:
"certainly from our experience in Alberta, in Phase 1" the HCWs wore "gowns, gloves, medical masks"... and "not a single HCW transmission"... despite "highly infectious, hot viral patients"
*Phase 1* is defined here: MARCH-APRIL 2020
2/
So why the "Phase 1" qualifier? Why is he using evidence from a 1 to 2 month period that was over a year ago, and extrapolating out to "8 months of continuous contact time", rather than just telling us what happened during the past year?
Re. "Is this really a debate?". Watch this video for yourself...
While this is from July 2020... so far there has been no public movement from Dr. Conly or the WHO IPAC committee on this issue. If anything they have dug-in their heels further.
Just want to clarify that it's likely the Mother was the Index case. Child tested negative at the hospital. Mother was asymptomatic but developed symptoms 2 days after discharge, tested positive on day 4. Child tested positive on day 6.
Another key quote:
"As some of the report's authors were taking part in the medical round and got infected, we can declare there was full compliance with PPE guidelines."