I don't care enough to find it, but someone once said "whether it's airborne will get sorted out later"

They also in mid-2020 authored this: ImageImage
I can tell you if anyone wants to look more deeply (I couldn't be bothered) here are the bits to look at:

Infection rate def higher.

CFR would be interesting to research. Image
Agree, strong efforts. Check hospital spread. Likely high. Image
This is multiple falsities.

First, yes, HCW in Wuhan caught it at a high rate. Before they all jumped up to airborne precautions and then rate dropped.

Second, it is not the case that "most were likely community acquired" and someone should check that footnote. ImageImage
R0 number falsity again (this article mid-2020 though, remember). I won't even bother to address right now. SARS2 will have R number if include asympts over 5, 6 and well into range of measles. Because of overdispersion, those that dont spread mean those that do the R0 is over 10 Image
SARS-CoV-2 virus in air was recorded a few months later.

I have a thread on SARS in air, MERS in air, SARS-CoV-2 in air, and other viruses in air. This issue is dead. Image
I am not poking through all these metareviews on p E806, but check their conclusions. When they say N95 not better than surgical (IF they even say that) they often say the evidence was low quality, and it's pointing towards the N95 being better, but just isn't stat significant.
The usual "we may run out". Should not be issue now. In fairness this is mid-2020, though. Image
Tired of donning/doffing args. Studies showing potential reinfection by donning doffing are weak (cover mask find on fingers etc)

Probably cited b/c allow an explanation of why people getting sick while wearing surgical masks (which per droplet theory are supposed to protect)
This crap is all garbage. Go pull it yourself. ImageImage
HCW may be stupid and cannot learn to use masks. Very nice.

Self-contam I talked about.

Take time to learn to use the mask? Okay, so what? This is a stupid comment. Image
This is an insane statement. More complex regimens yes, greater time and might make errors, but you apply the more complex because the risk is higher.

Footnote 45 tested two types ebola protective gear, found more mistakes in the enhanced - thats bc its more complicated! Image
You wouldn't use the basic because you make fewer mistakes! Cart before horse right here.

ANYWAY footnote 45 just noted more training reduced errors, that was the point of that article, not a selection of PPE standards!!
In the context of science as a whole this statement is just ... I mean ... what do you even say? People can choose what level is appropriate? I hope the workers get to choose, then.

... It's in the air so you gotta deal with it in the air. Image
AH HA (I do these as I go, so I didn't read ahead) here is

1. the crux of the matter
2. the attitude from these people

all in one quote. I need say nothing more. Image
This is rich. Image
Totally agree with this, and I'm done.

I didn't even mean to get into this stupid article. Image
Here's the link, go enjoy.


p.s. I bet all those footnotes about "harms of masks" are the same studies I've already critiqued elsewhere.

Happy Sunday, Happy Easter, wear a good mask, #COVIDisAirborne

Be safe
Here are 46-50 so I can check later Image
my thread on that was here, go backwards up it

Here was what was cited in that paper

better just post it here Image
Looks like only Foo repeats. Guess I'll have to poke through new ones some time

Wonder if I can get funding for a series of "living reviews" on this topic from a large international non-governmental org?

I mean, there must be one out there ...

the question is ...


• • •

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!


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

4 May
Railing against government and vaccinations ain't new.

From 1893.

Per this fellow, smallpox vaccine was a lie. Promised 100% protection, but people still caught it!

Per him, it was just a big set-up by the rich! Big Pox, he'd likely have called it, if today. Image
Per him, everyone interested in vaccines got paid. It was all about the pounds. Image
Per him, The Times was full of lies. Image
Read 9 tweets
3 May
[If all risk factors are the absolute highest they can be] "then this COULD be a scenario where a worker MAY wish [to ask for an N95]"

The seething disdain of these ppl for health-care workers oozes right off the page.

They can't even hide it.

Unbelievable. Image
Full letter 1/2 Image
2/2 Image
Read 4 tweets
3 May
Oh it's a meta-study.

Stupid me, of course it is. Exclude for bias/low quality the stuff you don't like.
Read 10 tweets
3 May
Mind releasing all your emails on point so we can check?

Just github em that'll be fine.
Truth is always in the emails.

Anyway, WHO's guidance was clear: 1m would keep people safe bc droplet.

June 2020 they said could not _rule out_ airborne (see pic).

WHO is destroying its credibility with this garbage.

And funding biased anti-air studies to. Image
Reminder Tedros' Feb 2020 remarks were actually pretty spot on.

A more virulent virus is seen to infect at longer range etc thus gets called "airborne" in the epidemiology sense. His whole paragraph was accurate.

Whole thing.

who.int/docs/default-s… Image
Read 5 tweets
2 May
People who say "nuanced" these days are usually just lying to you.
1. We could have been warning people, as _regular people_ could see, at the outset

2. SEPARATELY, we could have been warning them based on the precautionary principle.

3. THIRD, these people are flat out right now lying for PR reasons.
If they really felt that this was in the air they would have said so long ago.

The reality is the WHO was logjammed at committee and couldn't control it. An absolute shambles.

Others did not know at the outset, and derive personal benefit from the WHO so would not deviate.
Read 6 tweets
26 Apr
A quick thread.

Literally, because I opened this PDF.

Viruses able to be spread by airborne can also spread over short.
1966, adenovirus isolated from aerosol samples
Read 37 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!