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.]
🚨 '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'?
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
'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)'
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'
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
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
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?
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]
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