Thread by @LazarusLong13

The logic that aerosols produced by a nebullizer aren't indicative of aerosol transmission was also used by Dr. Conly, the @WHO's lead on the transmission committee during the discussion of #CovidIsAirborne.

https://twitter.com/LazarusLong13/status/1380836494978412551?s=20

The study being referenced is a preprint, but

https://twitter.com/DRTomlinsonEP/status/1387825883185127424

after reviewing it, I see no obvious gotchas on why it won't go forward.

Title "Aerosol Exposure of Cynomolgus Macaques to SARS-CoV-2 Results in More Severe Pathology than Existing Models"

While ferrets are typically the gold standard for respiratory studies, macaques are good

because their lungs and respiratory system are up and down, as opposed to horizontal like a ferret's.

Relevant section - using a Collison Nebulizer

This is the brand of nebulizer that was used in the study now published, "Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1"

"Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible,

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…

since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed)."

And as Dr. Tomlinson points out - was widely mocked by multiple parties.

Not going to point out who, but if you search "From@whomever " and

"Aerosol and Surface Stability " - you should find whatever you are looking for.

Personally, I prefer to keep moving forward as much as possible - except when trolls are being trolls.