1. In the coming weeks, you will be in a room with someone with #COVID19. But that doesn’t mean you will get infected. The dose makes the poison, so your goal is to reduce your dose as much as possible.
How do you do that? TL;DR - #BetterMasks, ventilation, and filtration 🧵
2. First the basics - Watanabe et al. 2010 published a dose-response model for SARS-CoV, which has been used as the conceptual foundation for SARS-CoV-2 risk modeling. You want to get yourself as far to the left as possible.
3. The question is, how much dose reduction is possible using simpler measures under your control?
Important to remember that measures are cumulative and multiplicative. So stack a few up and you can make a big difference.
4. First, how much can #BetterMasks help? There are countless KF94/KN95/N95 that get filtration above 99%. 99% would reduce your dose by a factor of 100. If everyone had an equivalent mask on, that’s a factor of 10,000. Pretty good start, I’d say…
5. But let’s be conservative and say that masking gives you a 90% reduction in dose, or a factor of 10.
(Parenthetically, remember how the math works. 50% reduction is factor of 2. 99% is factor of 100. So 99% is 50 times better than 50%).
6. You can also use ventilation to reduce concentrations. Even if you don’t have fancy technology, opening windows can make a big difference. Maybe a factor of 3-5 reduction.
8. So with good ventilation, filtration, and masking, it’s easy to get a factor of 100 reduction in dose. And with universal use of #BetterMasks plus robust ventilation and filtration, we could be talking a factor of 10,000 or 100,000. I like those odds.
10. Just as a simple example, their default settings lead to 9 of 21 people being infected. Masks at 50% efficacy + doubled outdoor air supply + modest filtration turns that into 1 infected. #BetterMasks and more aggressive ventilation and filtration turns it into 0.
11. So we don’t need a defeatist attitude, where we say we will all get exposed so why do anything. Our goal right now should be to reduce concentrations in all indoor spaces and to reduce inhaled dose for anyone in those spaces. We have the technology to do this.
12. Addendum - most of the above is individually focused. But a pandemic is collective. If we all do this, or more helpfully, put policies in place to allow all to do this, exponential growth quickly becomes exponential decline. And this protects all of us…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. For your holiday reading pleasure, a special section was just published @AMJPublicHealth on "New Frontiers in Environmental Justice". I was privileged to co-edit it with @DrDianaHernandz. This is a very important topic at a very important time. So what's in the issue? 🧵
2. First, @DrDianaHernandz and I provide a roadmap for the articles, emphasizing how much has changed since a similar special section a decade earlier. This includes escalating burden of climate change, structural racism, and political extremism.
3. An article by Goldsmith and @MichelleScience describes pathways that contribute to disproportionate environmental burdens on the LGTBQ+ population, a population often ignored in environmental justice work.
Look at the #COVID19 wastewater signal for Greater Boston, which tells us where cases are heading next week. It has NEVER been this high, even at last winter's peak. And vax rates in MA are generally higher in Greater Boston. And this is likely before #Omicron. Action now #mapoli
We have a choice: 1) Indoor mask mandate, all-out effort for boosters and vaccinations in vulnerable communities, expansion of testing 2) Do nothing, and watch as health care system is overloaded and families are devastated before the holidays
And for those who argue cases don't matter any more, only hospitalizations and deaths - hospitalizations are at highest level since February, and today was the first day with 50+ deaths reported since March. So we are decidedly not "decoupled".
1. Hi! Trained risk assessor here. Can we talk about this “1 in 5000” risk of getting #COVID19 if you are vaccinated, all of the things that are wrong with the number and how it is being used, and why I still think there is some value in the calculation? 🧵
2. First, for those unfamiliar, this first appeared (to my knowledge) in a column by @DLeonhardt in the @nytimes. He estimated a 1 in 5000 risk from stats in a few settings (UT, VA, WA). Let’s assume that his number is right. I still have a few major problems with it.
3. First, it is a daily risk, which is not how we commonly quantify risk. The column did say this directly, so it is not hidden from the reader, but many people dropped that nuance in talking about the number. Probably too much headline reading and not enough article reading.
Anyone patting themselves on the back about how we have handled #COVID19 in MA should periodically look at this chart and the profound racial/ethnic disparities. #mapoli
Our analyses showed that communities with higher % Latinx populations had sustained elevations in case incidence across the first 8 months of the pandemic, even after controlling for other factors.
1. Both MA and VT target 80% vaccination rate in schools to remove mask mandates. Let’s be clear that this isn’t about herd immunity. For one, 80% doesn’t get you there - if R0 = 6 for delta and vaccine efficacy is 90% (both generous assumptions), it would be 92.5%.
2. Also, a school isn’t a “herd” (though it sometimes feels like one). Students and staff go home and interact with people outside of school.
3. Pure speculation, but I would guess that 80% just felt like a reasonable target consistent with overall vaccination rates. And therefore unmasking is a “prize” for schools that hit the target.
1. I've been frustrated with how #COVID19 cases among the vaccinated have been reported, and I feel like it can be done better. I'm not an expert in this space, but I wanted to toss out some thoughts to #epitwitter and see if some collective wisdom could emerge. 🧵
2. First, to be clear, this is about public presentation of data in the media, not optimal study design to determine vaccine efficacy. My premise: Reporting just number of "breakthrough" cases lacks context, and "breakthrough" cases divided by number vaccinated lacks meaning.
3. So what is meaningful? Starting with cases, I'd argue that new cases per 100,000 vaccinated vs. new cases per 100,000 unvaccinated is a good starting point. CA does this - for the past week, it was 7 for vaccinated and 33 for unvaccinated.