Context: When considering airborne transmission of a respiratory virus, numerous factors are involved.
They ALL matter.
Moreover, they are all independent. Meaning, a certain parameter may affect each factor differently.
Since the dawn of the field (1950s/60s), the airborne survival of viruses has been measured as a function of relative humidity (RH) and temperature. There are numerous reasons for this, such as to understand viral transmission and to inform about why the virus decays.
Another reason there was a focus on temperature and humidity was that people can both feel, as well as control, them. By understanding transmission via these parameters, it becomes readily possible to mitigate spread.
For SARS-CoV-2, numerous epidemiological studies have shown that transmission INCREASES at HIGH humidity.
So, what is going on here? Both of thesethings can not be true.
More curious is the specificity of the claims. For example, there has been reported both a strong increase and decrease below an RH of ~70%.
To understand what is happening, consider the following figure. Of the numerous processes involved in airborne transmission of a virus, RH affects a significant fraction. Moreover, the effect is often contradictory.
Consider just what is happening within the aerosol.
At high humidity:
-SARS-CoV-2 remains infectious longer
-the aerosol itself is larger
-the larger size causes it to settle out of the air faster
These processes are contradictory
Consider the effect of RH on behavior. It the room gets too humid (or even too dry), people will proactively change their environment. For example, they may open a window leading to improved ventilation which in turn lowers the risk.
The body’s first line of defense to stop a respiratory infection is the layer of mucus and cilia on the surface of the bronchus epithelia. In dry air, the efficiency of this defense mechanism is lowered.
Mechanistically, there are reasons that high humidity both increases, and decreases, SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Likewise for low humidity.
As a result, it is unsurprising that both positive and negative correlations have been reported.
In short, the effect of humidity on SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a mess.
If you have any questions, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
I should also add that each of these general factors can be massively expanded. For example, "Immunity" encompasses all of the myriad of different virus/cell interactions.
@serehfas For example, people will turn on the AC in hot/humid conditions. Some AC units ventilate, others just push the, now cooler, air around more. Same action, wildly different changes in long distance transmission risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Answer: it’s an aerosol. And this distinction matters.
Let’s discuss 🧵
The burning sensation of tear gas is caused by the compound 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile.
Rather than discussing how this chemical affects the body biologically, let’s go over how this chemical is dispersed physically, and why that matters (aerosol science!).
Tear gas is delivered a couple different ways.
1) Pyrotechnic canister where the device produces a cloud of hot smoke.
2) Aerosol spray devices where the chemical is dissolved in a solvent and then sprayed.
In 2025, I’ve put together many threads discussing various aspects of science, science communication, aerosol science, or airborne disease transmission
With it being the end of the year, and social media being largely fleeting, I thought I’d highlight a few worth revisiting
A few of the threads discussed the fundamental challenges around measuring the effectiveness of mitigation strategies.
In this thread I discuss some of the challenges around designing RCT studies.
In this thread, I discussed how poor experimental design leads to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of ventilation/filtration, etc. on disease mitigation.
One of the reasons why I go so hard on science misinformation/disinformation, is that as a working scientist it is frustrating to see your research misreported to push an agenda.
For example, consider this piece of right-wing propaganda from The Telegraph that was just published
Here’s a link to the article (free to access on Yahoo).
The article is an opinion piece masquerading as journalism. While this is typical of these sorts of trashy publications, what concerned me was that they highlighted my research specifically to push their message.
This question came up on BlueSky. While somewhat coy, the question isn’t actually that simple to answer.
Given that I’m an “aerosol scientist”, I figured I take a crack at answering it.
An aerosol scientist is simply a scientist that studies aerosol.
Aerosol are any liquid or solid particle that is suspended in the air. Typically, these objects aresmaller than 100 microns. In short, we study various small airborne things.
These “things” can be literally anything. From biological (viruses, bacteria), to environmental (particulate matter), to industrial (spray drying), and beyond.
Thus, when someone studies aerosol, there are countless systems they could be interested in.
Shoutout to @CDare10 for flagging up this idiot’s post.
@CDare10 Hey @ClareCraigPath , how do scientists study airborne viruses if they are “uncontrollable “? For example, how is airborne decay measured if it’s impossible to control an aerosol?