I'm quoted in this @nytimes article from @apoorva_nyc being blunt (again) about the clumsy way we communicate risks of airborne transmission, and the way @WHO has handled it 1/n https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-1-big-claim-the-coronavirus-is-airborne.html …
Is aerosol transmission possible? Well it's not proven, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However this misses the more important question - does it make a big difference? 2/n
Aerosol/airborne transmission is a bugbear. It shouldn't be. It can be possible on *some* occasions, and yet the majority of transmission can be short range and droplet - which the majority of studies suggest it is 3/n
“There is no incontrovertible proof that SARS-CoV-2 travels or is transmitted significantly by aerosols, but there is absolutely no evidence that it’s not,” @trishgreenhalgh - yep 4/n
“Those that may have been frustrated may not be cognizant of how W.H.O. expert committees work, and they work slowly and deliberately” says @MarylouiseMcla1, absolutely correctly in my experience 5/n
Challenge is @Babak_Javid_Lab just asked - what do you do about it? Well it's actually much of what we know already. Most transmission is close range close contact. A mountain of evidence 6/n
We can limit transmission by limiting contacts (distancing), and the risk of transmission given a contact (masks probably help), and avoid superspreading events by not giving the virus the chance 7/n
I know it looks simple in a thread. It's evidently not. So be prepared to keep at it. Stop the new infections. It saves lives 8/end
You can follow @BillHanage.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Threader is an independent, ad-free project created by two developers. Our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Sign up today to compile, bookmark and archive your favorite threads.