David R Tomlinson 🇺🇦💙 Profile picture
Nov 18, 2021 11 tweets 7 min read Read on X
@WHO director of communications suggests that we need 'a consensus on terminology'; i.e. meaning of the word 'airborne'.

Logical possibilities:

1. She's right: 'airborne' has so many meanings as to render its use invalid.

2. She's wrong: 'airborne' has a single, clear meaning.
🚨 Dictionary evidence

Does this indicate multiple, potentially conflicting meanings, or a single, clear meaning?
🚨 Evidence from WHO teams' use

2014: IPC of epidemic & pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care

'The spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances and time. (9)'
🚨 Reference 9 from the 2014 WHO IPC guideline: source

@Don_Milton: when writing this 2004 perspective piece triggered by proven airborne transmission of SARS, DID NOT seek to question the meaning of the word 'airborne'.

And in 2014, WHO teams were happy using it too.
🚨 July 2020 SARS2 IPC Scientific Brief

'Airborne transmission is defined as the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances & time.(11)'

'aerosols' = only diff from 2014
🚨 Reference 11: source?

The 2014 IPC of epidemic & pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care: WHO Guideline

Getting boring isn't it?

WHO teams are soooo comfortable with their use of the word 'airborne' w.r.t. IPC, that they keep quoting their own definition.
🚨 SARS-CoV-2 & the role of airborne transmission: a systematic review (v2, 6th Sept 2021)

[You know, the one sponsored by WHO & denying airborne transmission, rejected due to reviewer concerns over flawed methodology.]

Link:
f1000research.com/articles/10-23…
🚨 'Airborne transmission is defined as the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances & time(1).

IDENTICAL to the July 2020 Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Scientific Brief
@gabbystern I respectfully suggest that the evidence above demonstrates a consensus on 'airborne' terminology dating back to 2004, with WHO teams consistently using near identical wording in multiple publications, most recently Sept 6th 2021.
Given this consensus:

'Airborne transmission is defined as the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in air over long distances & time'

WHY suggest the need for 'a consensus on terminology'?

• • •

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

Keep Current with David R Tomlinson 🇺🇦💙

David R Tomlinson 🇺🇦💙 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 @DRTomlinsonEP

Dec 18, 2023
'I would like to highlight evidence demonstrating that Professor Heneghan may be in breach of Section 35(2) of the Inquiries Act 2005'

Am looking forward to hearing your response @carlheneghan

covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/inq0…
TL/DR in evidence to @covidinquiryuk, CH stated SARS2 transmission is via large droplet & fomites

But:

Following peer review triggered changes 6 Jul 2022, CH's own work stated that SARS2 transmission is via 'fine aerosols & respiratory droplets, & to a lesser extent...fomites'
Why omit the empirical truth that SARS2 transmission occurs importantly via the airborne [aerosol inhalation] route?

Why do this, particularly as David Heymann's 13th Oct 2023 evidence to the PI clarified the @WHO position:

WHO knew SARS2 transmission was via aerosols, Jan 2020
Read 8 tweets
Oct 13, 2023
🚨David Halpern Cabinet Office

'Arguably the most fundamental misstep in the UK response was the presumption that covid would be an unstoppable flu-like wave'

This

underpinned the early (Chris Whitty) position on T&T, & the Vallance view on 'herd immunity' (later air-brushed)' Image
Aside

Early SAGE minutes clarify the UK rationale for stopping community SARS2 testing: it was deemed unnecessary because with rapidly increasing case numbers there was no point in testing, as there were insufficient personnel to contact trace

Good to know whose plan this was
'But there was an alternative'

'This led us to question...though we found ourselves quietly dismissed as not understanding the science'

'Ironically, the pride in our science & our capabilities, slowed our ability to learn lessons from other countries'

/2 Image
Read 8 tweets
Oct 12, 2023
In his capacity as co-chair of the 2016 pandemic respirator stockpile committee, where does JVT stand legally with this description of healthcare workplace protection 'logic' like this?

🚨Respirators only specifically recommended for ICU/HDU staff - i.e. AGP 'hotspots'

/1 Image
DESPITE

🚨Stronger evidence of aerosol transmission since 2009

🚨His own 2013 review now already used by David Heymann at @covidinquiryuk M1 to describe optimal protection against aerosols - FFP3 mandated as per COSHH

/2 Image
In his witness statement, JVT's logic rests on this concept:

🚨FFP3 is fine for MERS/SARS1 because of 'high case fatality rate & transmission to HCWs was well documented'

But what is unstated is the completion of this 'logic circle': I hope you don't mind me speculating?

/3 Image
Read 7 tweets
Sep 28, 2023
Dear @DidierPittet @jonotter @peyo3319

Good evening

By now 2 of you will have an email alert about my @PubPeerBot response to your Letter

UK Research Integrity Office (@UKRIO) teams suggested this route, on reading my detailed evidence submission
pubpeer.com/publications/B…
To overcome an unexpected formatting issue on upload to the PubPeer site, below please find my correctly formatted letter expressing concerns & questions over your 'research behaviour'

[your letter, plus summary comments from 2 down this thread]

p1-4


Image
Image
Image
Image
p5-7

Image
Image
Image
Read 24 tweets
Jun 15, 2023
Day 3 @covidinquiryuk

🚨Prof David Heymann

CV highlights

2003: WHO executive director for communicable diseases - headed the global response to SARS

2017-2022: Chair of the WHO Strategic & Technical Advisory Committee on Infectious Hazards (STAG-IH)

Written evidence 🥁

/1
Annex 2: Matters to be addressed from Letter of
Instruction

I hope you don't mind, but for obvious reasons I'll focus on his comments on transmission

#COVIDisAirborne

/2 Image
Transmission: pt 71 onwards

'Researchers addressed major questions about transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the first months of the pandemic

It was known...that the virus spread easily...especially in indoor & other closed spaces such as the Diamond Princess cruise ship...

/3
Read 17 tweets
Jun 14, 2023
Day 2 @covidinquiryuk: witness statements online

Prof Jimmy Whitworth & Dr Charlotte Hammer [p36] make an 'interesting' (i.e., exposing their bias &/or COI) statement concerning future recommendations
covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/upl…
/1
'Engagement...with academic research groups is needed so that key unanswered Qs arising during the early stages of an epidemic can be rapidly addressed. An example from the COVID-19 epidemic would have been to determine the role of airborne and droplet spread of infection'

/2
This, as we know, is a 'controversy' manufactured by WHO et al

van Doremalen (you know, whose research group's experimental aerosol viability work affirmed the airborne nature of MERS in 2013) proved beyond doubt that SARS2 was airborne in their 17 Mar 2020 @NEJM paper

/3
Read 5 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(