Thread by @LazarusLong13

Excellent rebuttal to "SARS-CoV-2 routes of transmission and recommendations for preventing acquisition: joint British Infection Association (BIA), Healthcare Infection Society (HIS), Infection Prevention Society (IPS) and Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance

https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1406941490878816258

That article, by Bak, Mugglestone, Ratnaraja Loveday, Islam, Wilson (2021)

journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-…

Archive:
web.archive.org/web/2021062115…

This rebuttal, "Aerosols should not be defined by distance travelled"

Tang, Marr, Milton (2021) archived here:
web.archive.org/web/2021062115…

,

Some of those who have RT'd the Bak et al (2021) - you should read this thread, as your citation had feet of clay, and it just crumbled.

Peter Collignon:

https://twitter.com/CollignonPeter/status/1389716139387719680?s=19

Roger Ayebare

https://twitter.com/Chiga_toxin/status/1389085492004728833?s=19

EU Committee on Infection Control

https://twitter.com/EUCIC1/status/1397892508198133769?s=19

And of course, the organizations that sponsored that review that's has failed so spectacularly.

British Infection Association @biainfection
Healthcare Infection Society
@HIS_infection
Infection Prevention Society (IPS)
@IPS_Infection
Royal College of Pathologists @RCPath

Some key highlights, in a second, but a couple of rebuttals from myself and others, regarding the Bak et al (2021) article.

They had no aerosol or respiratory virus transmission experts involved.

This will be reflected in the sadly basic errors they make.

The Working Party said that airborne is possible in situations like AGP's.

But Dr.Tomlinson points out UK data demonstrated significantly *greater* infection risk among staff w/no AGP's.

https://twitter.com/DRTomlinsonEP/status/1389825267426906114?s=19

Dr. Cook on the same point:

https://twitter.com/doctimcook/status/1389859155134062592?s=19

Dr. Cook: AGP = Aerosol Generating People

https://twitter.com/doctimcook/status/1389289316216623112?s=19

Dr. Sharma pointed out that N95 usage resulted in no infections in Finland.

https://twitter.com/DrDayaSharma/status/1383052439117471749?s=19

The Working Party attempted to say there was no evidence that N95's work outside of healthcare.

Except for physics and the NIOSH rating system.

Does a cotton mask have a rating of how much it filters N95's from the air?

Of course not. We know it does to some degree, but not 95%.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIOSH_air…

Does physics work differently in healthcare than everywhere else?

Of course not.

There are tons of YouTube videos

on how to learn to fit an N95.

If still not getting fit, an N100 elastomeric mask could be used to get an automatic good fit.

More here:

https://twitter.com/LazarusLong13/status/1385649632345165824?s=19

It puzzles me why organizations whose literal job is to stop transmission do not advocate for the best possible

PPE.

Instead, they act as gatekeepers for the hospital administrations, who do not seem to care about their HCW's getting PTSD from the never-ending flood of patients in a pandemic.

Never mind stopping the pandemic which can only be achieved by stopping...transmission.

Why?

Moving on, Bak (2021) tried to use R0 to define the route of transmission.

It does not actually do this. 👇👇

They also used the classically misused "close contact" which is NOT a mode of transmission.

Close contact is a description of distance.

And aerosols infect more with close contact.

Bak (2021) was published at the end of April.

On May 4th, the WHO acknowledged that SARS-COV-2 was airborne.

forbes.com/sites/jvchamar…

On May 7th, the CDC acknowledged that SARS-COV-2 was airborne.

nytimes.com/2021/05/07/hea…

When will the British Infection Association @biainfection
Healthcare Infection Society
@HIS_infection
Infection Prevention Society (IPS)
@IPS_Infection
Royal College of Pathologists @RCPath,

acknowledge that SARS-COV-2 is airborne and add an editorial note to Bak (2021)?