2/ "We encourage school districts to use stimulus funds to improve the indoor air quality of their schools. Use evidence-based strategies. Avoid technologies that have not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research."
3/ "We encourage students, teachers, and the community to engage with district administrators and encourage them to leverage funds to support both the immediate and long-term health of students and staff." coloradosun.com/2021/04/23/saf…
4/ "The stakes are high for schools across Colorado and the rest of the country. Airborne transmission of COVID-19 remains a threat to every community, especially as more transmissible and dangerous variants rise."
5/ "The same, crucial investments in indoor air quality can dramatically improve health for students, teachers, and school staff for the rest of this pandemic and the next generation." coloradosun.com/2021/04/23/saf…
6/ "If done properly, the same investments will also help improve the air our children breathe when in school and reduce asthma, allergies, and effects from worsening air pollution from Colorado wildfires and urban smog." coloradosun.com/2021/04/23/saf…
7/ "We strongly advocate using well-established methods of ventilation and filtration — approaches based in evidenced-based decision-making that will pay dividends to student health now and for a generation." coloradosun.com/2021/04/23/saf…
8/ "And we also encourage constituents across the state to advocate for these decisions to be made in their local districts."
9/ "The consistent message from experts is to avoid being too creative with airborne solutions. Stay away from worthless — or even dangerous — add-ons to filtration like bipolar ionization, hydroxyl or ozone generators, and fumigation with disinfectants." coloradosun.com/2021/04/23/saf…
10/ "Avoid gimmicks. Follow the science. Filter & ventilate the air."
"simple building ventilation and portable filtration strategies make air safer not only from airborne diseases, but also from air pollution."
I respectfully disagree that the recent (& important) editorial/review in @TheLancet "omits or dismisses crucial observations." A statement that "close contact" spread cannot be driven largely via aerosol inhalation is a mischaracterization of the inhalation route. (1/x)
(1) touching something/someone infected & transferring to yourself (2) receiving a direct spray of large droplets that hit e.g. mucous membranes (3) inhaling virus in aerosols at either close or long range onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/in…
3/ All three pathways can happen at close-range. Direct observational evidence for any one of the three is nearly impossible for individual cases.
Article outlines clear reasoning why aerosol inhalation should be treated as an important (not only) driver. thelancet.com/journals/lance…
This dude is just wild. If he weren't so influential, best just to ignore his theories about the mysterious, undiscovered properties of air to kill viruses.
2/ What gets me is that by invoking the idea of an undiscovered force in outdoor air that is killing airborne viruses, he is somehow trying to change the narrative & ignore his constant opposition to airborne transmission and that EVERYONE agrees that outdoor air is safer.
3/ Enclosed indoor spaces trap exhaled aerosols from diluting into bigger outdoor spaces. Bringing magical anti-virus outdoor air inside is NOT the point. Pushing viral aerosol out IS the point.
#1 "superspreading events account for substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission"
#2 "long-range transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between people in adjacent rooms but never in each other's presence has been documented in quarantine hotels."
#3: "asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from people who are not coughing or sneezing is likely to account for at least a third, and perhaps up to 59%, of all transmission globally and is a key way SARS-CoV-2 has spread around the world"
Stronger prevention against the aerosol component of COVID spread is absolutely crucial for public health, especially healthcare. Major pushback against this has cost many lives. Please listen (2 min) to the best reasons why this WHO leader says they are not worth it. 1/
2/ In relation to the comments by Dr. Conly about N95 risks to pregnant women - this is a nice thread by @caruzycki showing major errors in how that study was designed. Authors modified an N95 mask until it was very to breathe through first.
3/ In contrast, there are lots of legitimate & very important reasons to use upgraded masks (N95s, elastomeric respirators) - because they protect lives.
A really nice story from Kim Tingley about the Skagit Valley chorale outbreak from last year.
Walks through the personal side of the tragedy, how the outbreak provided crucial clues about the airborne spread of COVID. [+ choir song link] HT @jljcolorado nytimes.com/interactive/20…
2/ “'We proved how you get this thing,' Comstock told me. 'And it’s so damn frustrating to watch the news and see that they’re ignoring it.'”
3/ "But the notion that [sitting close, sharing snacks, stacking chairs] caused so many infections, as @jljcolorado characterized it to me, is 'absurd.' He says that that emphasis helped enable the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. to maintain and defend their guidelines."
Here summarizing the new & significant evidence over the last year that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne - in relation to evidence WHO suggested should be necessary.