Cheap MacGyvered solutions 4 airborne transmission

Pinned tweet:

I don’t need to be involved, and fully expect the design to be tweaked in a dozen ways beyond where I left it.

Suggestions on ways to get paulhammant.com/maskstudy into the hands of Congo-based MacGuyver-ists and bypassing the stay-in-your-lane perfection-or-nothing -ists?

@RVAwonk @billiebuttons64 I think it’s cos “single use” rules means they’re too expensive to some bean counters. Baseless rules, as portacount tests can show they are still effective at 60 hours of use.

Why not use an N95 out of an abundance of caution? What possible reason is there for not taking that tiny step just to ensure they’re protected?

Omg even at the National Quarantine Unit where the hantavirus contacts are, they’re still only using surgical masks when people in quarantine interact with the medical staff. If one of them gets infected, you’ll know why.

@BarryHunt008 Such a shit description. No permutation of “contact” and “close” actually explains how it transmits. No one actually believes it as a term, but their boss tells them they have to say to get paid.

MVK is 100% wrong 😑 Again And she's broadcasting dangerous misinformation To the world Again And confidently so Again Misinformation that will lead to serious harm This is a pattern of behaviour that should be immediately disqualifying for a role in Public Health

Great to see these important guidelines and a systematic outbreak protocol. However, the old 2m rule is not based on data, assumes the droplet vs airborne dichotomy, based on old studies done 50-80 years ago with blunt instruments. And R0 of Andes was 2.21 in the last big outbreak. academic.oup.com/jid/article/22…

The absolutely farcical inability of WHO to use the word AIRBORNE in discussions about the mode of transmission and appropriate precautions for healthcare workers continues on from COVID-19 in their Hanta virus fact sheets .….. …..public messaging is led once again by epidemiologist Maria who now uses the vague and unhelpful term “close contact” that does not clarify the mode or the science of transmission. A commonsense question about what “close contact” means from the reporter in the clip below tries to get clarification but Maria will not, or cannot, answer the question. A question so vital for knowing what situations are likely to put you at risk and what is necessary to stay safe. Reporter: “When you say close contact …could you perhaps specify what you mean by that exactly……what does close contact mean? Does that mean people who have been in physical contact ….within the same room….and just a little bit of detail on how therefore it would spread…. because how here is quite important to understand…” We need more than epidemiological terms that fail to enlighten us on the basic science of “how” a pathogen spreads from one person to another. (Note that unless scuba diving, shared air is common to everyone in close contact🤔) As the reporter says it’s a simple but important question essential to communicate what is understood!! A question that if it cannot be answered with any certainty, at least requires some discussion of the science and potential likely mechanisms. Vague and unhelpful epidemiological terms like “close contact” are not enough to formulate the most effective mitigation strategies we need for any deadly pathogen. Advising “close contact” is even more useless in deciding on what sort of “transmission based precautions” are required in healthcare….contact, droplet, airborne…?? If uncertainty persists explain what we do know about the science, or get someone in WHO that can explain it, and at least also emphasise the place of the precautionary principle in guidance if any doubt. (While on the the topic of getting clarity about what we know about the science of transmission from WHO, a reminder that we can never again tolerate misinformation, and definitely never again, lies or disinformation) @DrTedros @gabbystern @KuzmanovicA @vismitag x.com/whoafro/status… x.com/LazarusLong13/…

MVP Gerard Hughes on breathability

This is my DIY HRV AccordFlow in the bedroom window. It produces a deep, steady brown noise that I find very pleasant and calming. My partner likes it too — it sounds good at low, medium and high speed. Been running 24/7 for 18 months now, built with Arctic P14 fans. If anyone is curious how it was built, here’s the guide: @levangelistedelaventilation/accordflow-a-quiet-filtered-diy-hrv-guide-to-building-it-d766cbcc7415" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">medium.com/@levangelisted…

“This same language shows that @DrTedros really meant "airborne" as we all understand it. The “military language” excuse afterwards was of course a deliberate lie.” Great find by @mdc_martinus - did Tedros or anyone else working at WHO, like director of external relations @BoehmeCatharina ever respond to this further piece of evidence to unequivocally show that they lied and deliberately misled the world about transmission? WHO, the organisation entrusted to provide reliable guidance, allowed people to think they were safe with droplet precautions - flimsy ineffective masks, cleaning surfaces, handwashing and 1-2m distancing. How many died thinking they were safe following guidelines WHO knew to be inadequate? Will the world excuse them thinking the WHO were just a bit “slow” to recognise the AIRBORNE nature of transmission, when in fact they knew from the beginning, and deliberately lied to deceive people about the risk of shared air? Will long will they continue to avoid accountability for the most deadly scandal in the history of humanity? @EricTopol @dyanilewis @MeganMolteni

@chaitrovert @peterrhague @marypmadigan Well they picked droplet/fomite mitigations because they believed airborne ones would have been too expensive and ruled out any strategy of ingenuity

@peterrhague @marypmadigan they knew covid was airborne from the start. if they applied known airborne protocols/upgrades maybe we wouldn't have needed a total lockdown. but that would've cost them money. so we had the WHO tweeting "covid is not airborne" in 2020 & bad info just got worse from there

I’ve said it before, the pandemic broke society even more profoundly than we thought at the time. Nothing snapped back right.

I used to wonder what it felt like to be a scientist sounding the alarm on: tobacco AIDS Now we’re living it. Turns out the barrier isn’t evidence. It’s denial.

Yes. The kids' hepatitis was directly due to SARS-COV-2. Not Adenovirus. Quelle surprise. sciencedirect.com/science/articl…

One key point about some Long Covid policy and research. It's not that so-called prominent researchers choose inaction despite their connections and power. Imo, it's they are "made" prominent and given power/recognition to do nothing

Really important thread 🧵 There were so many BIG wins in the Covid Inquiry M3 report. So many of the things CATA & other core participants fought for were completely vindicated: 🚨aerosol transmission 🚨ventilation 🚨AGPs dead in the water …BUT some big omissions too…

I told you so

I spent the past 3 days in Texas building over 60 CR boxes and @cleanairkits for multiple schools. Every classroom now has a portable air cleaner to help teachers and students be healthier and learn better. @CRFoundationUS Why was this important to do?

3 years after infection, women who had COVID have higher risk of pre-cancerous & invasive HPV-related cancers. Invasive cancer risk increased by 67% for cervical, 131% for vaginal, 98% for vulvar, 92% for anal, & 78% for oropharyngeal cancer. link.springer.com/article/10.100… #LongCovid

@1goodtern Handwashing compliance to prevent airborne transmission though ???? /s

And those guts again:

I'm in a lull on twitter without much visibility, so probably hardly anyone will see this, but here's an important thread on "why everyone's sick all the time". No, you are not imagining it. Sickness is increasing. Sickness absence rates are increasing.

I don't have Long Covid, and have never had Covid. But I advocate for those who do....