Hey so funny story. On Saturday a new fake twitter account popped up using my name and image. I thought oh, maybe I need to get a verified account now? So applied for one, only to find out I don't qualify (not enough followers they said). 2/
So I reported the new account, and mentioned in the report "by the way, there are multiple fake jvipond accounts". Yest at 4:40 was told my report had been acted on, and the offending account suspended.3/
2 min later my account was suspended as well, and the email I got announcing it used the same case number.
So, I think that the twitter algorithm caught my real account in the net of fake accounts. 4/
Suspecting it is not malfeasance but just an algorithmic error. Glad to be able to keep spouting off on rapid tests, airborne transmission, climate mitigation, and all round good covid policy. Thanks to y'all who stood up for me .<24 hours to correction thanks to you! fin/
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think we need to talk about the Infection Prevention and Control- Canada organization (IPAC-Canada). @IPACCanada, who has their annual conference starting Sunday. 1/
I was lucky enough to present at last year's convention at the invite of @BarryHunt008, on environmental impact of masking policies, with a focus on airborne protection.
You can see my presentation here: 3/
It's out! The @WHO's new wordsmithing report on airborne transmission. I'm going to do a little dissection on the good and the bad, who wins and who loses. 1/ cdn.who.int/media/docs/defβ¦
the TLDR is: "through the air" is the old "droplet" and "airborne" transmission modalities combined. "inhalation" is the new "airborne". "direct deposition" is the new "droplet" 2/
The great: finally an acknowledgment that short-range airborne transmission is an integral component of all (not just COVID) airborne transmission. This is huge. It means that workers esp. HCWs need respirator masks (FFP2/3, N95) when interacting with concerning patients. 3/
Apparently many in the Canadian ID community on this platform are weighing in that paxlovid should no longer be recommended to high-risk (elderly, immunocompromised) outpatients with confirmed covid.
I think we should take a look at the evidence they've presented.
(a thread) 1/
So far there has been no evidence presented, none, except for the blogpost posted in the first tweet.
No peer reviewed science. At all.
And a reminder that there are still >500 inpts in Alberta with covid, and 10-20 patients dying each week (all likely high risk patients).
2/
Another reminder is I reviewed the paxlovid evidence in a thread a few weeks ago, in response to a paxlovid-minimizing news story by @LaurenPelley of @CBCNews.
You can check out the thread here: 3/
At least @ChrisVarcoe mentioned the climate crisis concerns this time.
"The oil and gas industry is the largest emitting sector in Canada. The Liberal government has introduced a series of policies as concerns around climate change mount" 2/
But this is sloppy and "news release" journalism:
"CAPP noted emissions from the conventional oil and gas sector fell by 24 per cent, while production grew by 21 per cent between 2012 and 2021."
How many ways does this article anger me?
Let me count the ways...
#debunktionjunktion
(although, honestly, fighting @calgaryherald on climate issues is rather pointless, in the past @ChrisVarcoe has often been better than this)
Thread calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnβ¦
1) I realize I'm like a broken record. But having an article, on a climate issue, without mentioning the word "climate" once, is not cool. Of course people don't want to do hard things, unless they know why they need to do it. (see search in upper left corner)
2) Zero interviews from anyone, aside from the federal government, as to why this cap is necessary. All industry or industry-adjacent voices.