Magic measles spreads just like COVID-19.

Imagine that.

Childcare, home, etc major settings.

Of course contact, because you need to at some point be near a sick person, but 40% unidentified locations.

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
Not all that useful, but this is the data we get in Toronto:

Ppl can do their own research since it ain't me saying droplet for one BREATHOUTABLE virus and airborne for magic measles.
And this is how stupid this debate is.

Lancet in 2017 says measles "predominantly" droplets.

thelancet.com/journals/lance…

#COVIDisAirborne
#MeaslesisAlreadyAdmittedToBeAirborneButSeemsToBeMostlyDropletHuh
The terms droplet and airborne mean nothing including to the people who use them.

They serve only to confuse.

They are physically wrong,

Airborne comes from the 1700s, and droplet from early 1900s.

Goodnight moon; goodnight stupid terms from time afar.

#COVIDisAirborne
It's Friday.

Endure my torturous picture editing skills.

Someone make this pretty or something. This is terrible.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne

Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jmcrookston

25 Apr
19 person outbreak at the Public Health Ontario labs.

Same PHO that says surgical masks just fine.

Same PHO that wrote that biased snobby and insulting summary of the aerosol conference in November.

Can't even make this stuff up.

toronto.ctvnews.ca/19-employees-c… Image
Image
"Wondered"?

Whether "community spread" or whether "somehow acquired through an infection from laboratory tests itself"

I'll tell you where from ...

"I think this is an airborne virus and it's more infectious than we give it credit for"

My God, it's full of stars. Image
Read 19 tweets
23 Apr
Math modelling suggests may take as few as ten virions for someone to become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Order of magnitude more infective than SARS.

Also blows up the 6 foot rule. Those babies from that stupid 1981 study gonna be upset.

pnas.org/content/118/17… Image
That would be BANG on this dose response for SARS-CoV-1

pic here Image
Read 15 tweets
22 Apr
On the airborne argument, fundamentally the reason they won't agree to ever change.
From UK IPS
Note the concern with breaking ranks from national guidance, which of course would apply similarly at national up to international level.
Read 15 tweets
22 Apr
I rarely bother with her tweets but this one is correct.

It is vaccines AND adjusting their view of the science to aerosol (the truth) that will help get to minimal cases.

Unfortunately the WHO committee system appears to be broken, and its advice negligent.

#COVIDisAirborne
Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought during a global pandemic the people holding the world up would be the infectious disease doctors and the WHO,

And by dismissing the actual laboratory scientists who do this work.

Crazy.
Well we've shown how this has been going on for 120 years and founded on nonsense

Absolutely everything points to air

Scientists say air

Math modellers say can only be air

Epi data properly interpreted (or if you don't lie about it) says air

Other viruses in air

It's in air
Read 4 tweets
21 Apr
Well that's it for the WHO's reputation.

It shot itself here.
CBC reporting on WHO advisor not providing masks because of acne

That was today.

BUT ALSO this also just came out, where WHO funded four reports which surprisingly (really, not) said no air spread. Those reports connected to virus downplayers/deniers.

Read 12 tweets
21 Apr
And what committee wrote that?

And who wrote the August article from the committee?

And who presented recently?

And now we have four more garbage review articles coming out, funded by WHO, that say "more evidence needed"?

This is like climate denial.
... No amount of evidence seems to suffice.

Move past the naysayers and carry on.
Oh no.

Would you look at that. Conflicts and funding from the WHO to downplay aerosol spread.

Well, every litigation file just got a whole lot easier.

bylinetimes.com/2021/04/21/sci…
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!