The @Telegraph released an article claiming "we're still not completely sure how coronavirus spreads or how to stop it", muddying the waters re. Airborne Transmission.
If I were a hostile foreign state, with a goal of prolonging the Pandemic in the West, I would write this.
🧵1/
I'm not surprised that the usual WHO IPC Consultant suspects, continued to preach the biased tenets of #DropletDogma via their interviews in this article.
What shocked me is the lack of scientific fact-checking from the so-called "Science Editor" @sarahknapton.
2/
Two egregious things stick out, which amount to journalistic malpractice.
1) Citing the interviewees biased, failed review as evidence that Airborne Transmission isn't occurring
2) Referencing year-old, obsolete comments from Dr. Klompas, without mentioning his recent work
3/
1) The article references this WHO-funded, biased, "systematic review" preprint, which FAILED Peer Review and has been universally panned by respected peers in the field. Read the Peer Review AND the Comments. This Review has yet to be published. f1000research.com/articles/10-23… 4/
Heneghan's claim (made in the article and the review) that "no study has found viable viral particles in the air that could have gone on to infect someone", is a lie.
Lednicky has successfully cultured virus from air twice. Dr. Tellier/Dr. Tang pick a part the criticisms here: 5/
Also recall that @trishgreenhalgh et al's widely lauded Lancet paper, was a direct response to this biased "Systematic Review".
It seems Heneghan and co. couldn't get their paper published and past a peer-review, so they went to the @Telegraph.
The second point, which I found to be most egregious, was the way @sarahknapton selectively used a year-old quote from Dr. Michael Klompas (ID MD from Harvard), without disclosing that Klompas has spent the past year publishing papers in support of Aerosol Transmission.
7/
Here's one recent paper, where Klompas explicitly acknowledges aerosol and airborne transmission, and argues for universal N95 use (Airborne Precautions) when community transmission is high, instead of Surgical masks (Droplet Precautions).
Here's another recent study that Klompas was an author on, looking at nosocomial transmission in hospitals, despite social distancing and closed curtains, and in absence of Aerosol Generating Procedures.
And we can't forget this critical Klompas study, which proved nosocomial transmission despite Droplet Precautions, and makes a strong argument for more wide-spread N95 use (ie. Airborne Precautions).
So to frame Dr. Klompas, as an ID expert that is opposed to Aerosol Transmission in August 2021, is frankly egregious. If the @Telegraph and @sarahknapton want to have even a shred of credibility going forward, they should probably update this article.
11/
To close, I'll link to a summary of studies providing evidence for Airborne Transmission. Decide for yourself if they're "low quality".
The vast majority PASSED peer-review and were published in prestigious journals.
Something that cannot be said about the Heneghan Review.
12/
Final tweet with the last 2 pages of studies. And this list doesn't even scratch the surface of available evidence.
Any mask will provide some source control, but given Delta's formidable transmissibility, it's time for #bettermasks to maximize protection for ourselves and others.
☑️FILTER
🟠GOOD: A 3 ply, tightly-woven, cloth mask with a polypropylene inner layer
🟡BETTER: ASTM rated surgical masks, Level 2 or 3
🟢BEST: KN95, KF94, N95, Elastomeric Respirators
But since COVID spreads in aerosols.. we also need to #mindthegaps with a good FIT...
2/
☑️FIT
🟠GOOD: Thin cloth mask over a surgical mask, or use ear-saver/hair clip.
🟡BETTER: KN95/KF94 respirator with user seal-check, or mask brace on surgical mask.
🟢BEST: N95/N99/Elastomeric Respirator with user seal-check. If high-risk worker: Fit-Tested Respirator
There has been a multi-day debate occurring amongst @AntibioticDoc and many engineers and Aerosol scientists, regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to use HEPA filters to mitigate against Airborne Transmission of SARS2.
For those following this HEPA filter thread – this is a really important acknowledgement. It’s clear from the thread, and this particular tweet, that many Infectious Disease experts still doubt that aerosol transmission is an important/mitigable transmission route for SARS2🧵 1/
While they acknowledge aerosol transmission can occur, they believe it is a rare event occurring in special circumstances, and is therefor not worth the $ to mitigate.
Eg. re HEPAs: "We need to resource by best impact", "Changes need rigorous justification and business case".
2/
See my pinned tweet for a thread summarizing the overwhelming evidence that Aerosol Transmission is an important and mitigable route. At the end, I provided a reference list and posed a question to the ID holdouts - no responses yet. 3/
During Friday's debate with @kprather88 and @DFisman, Dr. Conly raised a fairly common counter-point for why he thinks COVID is NOT Airborne: the relatively low Secondary Attack Rate (SAR) and Reproduction Rate (R0).
Let's unpack this flawed argument in a 🧵
1/
Dr. Conly states the SAR is 3 to 10%, with a household mean of 18%.
He then correctly points out that there is significant heterogeneity within the data, which means some people transmit to no contacts, while others transmit to everyone.
2/
After admitting to the heterogeneity, he cautions we "have to be careful not to draw conclusions" from these superspreaders... eg. Chalet (73% SAR), Choir (53%), and Diamond Princess (58.9%). He suggests there were "extenuating circumstances", and seems to dismiss them. 🧐
3/
As Dr. Conly reminded us on Friday, when considering Airborne Transmission, "it's very important to take into consideration the very very complex environment".... "direction of airflow, the number of air changes, temperature, relative humidity... its veeery very complex"
2/
This is actually NOT "complex" for Aerosol scientists, mechanical engineers, building scientists, and other experts in fluid mechanics. Due to the Pandemic, these experts have diverted their brainpower to this problem. See summary of studies below.
Let's unpack Dr. Conly on the Precautionary Principle.
Q: Why weren't HCW provided N95s, given the advanced warning that SARS2 might be Airborne?
Conly: "I need to see a much higher level of evidence..."
(🤔 That's not how the Precautionary Principle works)
🧵 1/
He then makes a pretty bold claim:
"certainly from our experience in Alberta, in Phase 1" the HCWs wore "gowns, gloves, medical masks"... and "not a single HCW transmission"... despite "highly infectious, hot viral patients"
*Phase 1* is defined here: MARCH-APRIL 2020
2/
So why the "Phase 1" qualifier? Why is he using evidence from a 1 to 2 month period that was over a year ago, and extrapolating out to "8 months of continuous contact time", rather than just telling us what happened during the past year?