Before this gets out of hand. "Distance doesn't matter" IS NOT what "it's airborne" or primarily aerosol-transmitted means or implies, and the headline is not reflecting correctly a modeling paper they are using says. Calling in @linseymarr and @jljcolorado among others. https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1385628971086323719
What's true is that in a "well-mixed" room (VERY IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION IN THE MODEL IN THAT PAPER BEING REPORTED ON), if you spend long enough time, distance isn't *completely* protective which IS NOT AT ALL THE same as "distance doesn't matter" or that 6 and 60 feet are the same.
Perhaps the most important misunderstanding has been assuming aerosols=long distance only. No, they do not teleport from a person to over two feet away a la "beam it over there, Scotty." Aerosols ALSO concentrate around the person and dilute with distance. https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1385708443537866758
I'd suggest that it doesn't help to jump from "distance isn't fully protective especially if you sit long enough in an enclosed space where the air keeps mixing" to headlines like "6 feet and 60 feet are the same!". Again @linseymarr and others have great work on this.
Another from an expert.Of course aerosol concentration dilutes with distance (and very quickly outdoors for obvious reasons!) but if the space is enclosed, they can keep accumulating, and "6 feet" isn't some magic bubble—especially if you stay long enough. https://twitter.com/kprather88/status/1384162849354776579
Adding. It goes without saying that I'm just a vehicle here, reflecting years of research on this topic by many scientists. I'd like that headline corrected, at a minimum, though, @RichMendezCNBC. Telling people distance doesn't matter at all isn't okay. https://twitter.com/HuffmanLabDU/status/1385722709271711745
And here’s another leading scientist on airborne transmission. https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1385751394595090436
Leading aerosol/ventilation scientist after another has tried to get CNBC to correct the dangerously misleading headline and framing. Still no go. Distance of course matters, but isn’t 100% protective in a poorly-ventilated space over time. Shouldn’t be this hard. https://twitter.com/j_g_allen/status/1385892995233468417
See these this three tweets for more on the problem with the headline/framing that @kprather88 @linseymarr @jljcolorado @j_g_allen tried to explain among many others (out and about lost track of the many who tried). https://twitter.com/linseymarr/status/1385752349738688518
Enough already. This headline is dangerously misleading. Distance does a lot of work, even indoors, but if the location is enclosed then, OVER TIME, the air will mix to farther away places (though viruses also lose infectivity over time). @Marianne_Guenot https://twitter.com/wesyang/status/1387069955343097856
Thread⬆️ has many aerosol scientists. Our paper below explains why distance matters for airborne transmission. TBH, this is the cost of global health agencies not stepping up to provide correct transmission explanations. Misinformation thrives in a vacuum. https://twitter.com/samuelmehr/status/1386837096313368582?s=20
Oh my goodness, STOP! That study—a model—did not find that distance offers "no protection". The model *assumed* the air was continuously and completely mixed in an enclosed space! That's not how real life works. Indoors, air does mix *over time* but also virus loses infectivity.
You can follow @zeynep.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: