WHO document drops on #SARS2 transmission, so I opened this up as if it was a tactical nuke needing defusing.
But holy cow...
WHO Airborne Risk Indoor Assessment (ARIA) Technical Advisory Group with LIDIA MORAWSKA as the CO-CHAIR!?!?
CERN?!?!?
WHO Environment and Engineering Control Expert Advisory Panel (ECAP) with Cathy Noakes on it and ASHRA liason?
An actual model?
I do see the dreaded Dr. IPAC Droplets on the committee... hmm.
<now reading intensely, this is going to take a few minutes>
Indoor #airborne #risk #assessment in the context of #SARSCoV2 : description of airborne transmission mechanism and method to develop a new standardized model for risk assessment
I'm only at the Executive Summary, but, holy cow is correct.
"The SARS-CoV-2 virus can spread in several ways: through zoonotic transmission, direct and indirect contact transmission, direct deposition transmission, and inhalation or airborne transmission. An increasing body of evidence [28]–[31] suggests that it is transmitted through infectious fluids released from an infected individual as particles of different sizes and quantities, such as during breathing, speaking, coughing and sneezing. While the largest particles travel downwards quite rapidly, the smaller ones remain suspended in the air for longer periods and can travel farther distances. When people are in close proximity, transmission of infectious particles can occur through direct inhalation (short-range) and deposition onto the mucous linings of the respiratory tract and ocular membranes of a susceptible host particularly in the absence of face covers and ventilation. ‘Long-range’ transmission can occur in enclosed settings when infectious particles accumulate over time in a given volume, where the concentration of virions is sufficient enough to cause infection once infectious particles are inhaled by a susceptible host."
I'll be sitting down to carefully read the rest of this now!
@DaywalkingRedhead @BE @EricCarroll
It's been FOUR YEARS. Four. Years. Millions dead.
Until the scientists who actually give a damn about public health are truly at the helm instead of money-grubbing powermongers, we're still in very very deep trouble.
@BE
Notice the foreshadowing of the forthcoming change to transmission language in the language definitions. (!!!)
I am still reading, awaiting the big political monster reveal...
@BE @EricCarroll Can I get your take on how you think it will change things (if at all)?
@IPEdmonton
WHO changing position is necessary (but not sufficient) for changes in downstream organizations like IPAC.
IPAC as a compliance org won't move with current WHO position of droplet dogma.
It gives IPAC pioneers people like Dr Victor Leung a tool to beat the compliance mindset with.
There will be much reactionary pushback.
@BE
I wish we could see what's happening, who is on the side of public health and how they're teaming up to push against this nightmare, and who specifically is trying to stop them.
It's a fantastic question, and I'd say "It won't. Today." Pick your leader of choice who's been choosing to ignore COVID. They're not going to go "Oh wow. The WHO put out this super in-depth discussion of aerosol transmission of COVID. I need to do something!"
I do think this is the kind of document that starts the wheels moving, though. Lawsuits and insurance generally move faster than politics these days, and here's a document tediously documenting rates, sources and routes of infection.
@BE @EricCarroll this answer satisfies me. It feels both realistic and hopeful.
@BE @EricCarroll We have known this since early 2020. I hate to be the bitter “too little too late” person. But if this manages to start the shift, so we start moving towards mitigations being normalized instead of demonized… I’ll try to just be grateful.
But I’ll never not be bitter.