RT @dksdata: In March of 2020 I published about COVID being Airbourne. June 2022 - British Medical Journal... COVID is Airbourne. End the…
In March of 2020 I published about COVID being Airbourne. June 2022 - British Medical Journal... COVID is Airbourne. End the #MaskCharade. https://t.co/zCbyOuJ2Iq https://t.co/mplSymwYgP https://t.co/OL0n4l5oUX https://t.co/JbyXUCpL73 https://t.co/Q
a more tried and true methodology showed far long stability: https://t.co/46f1Y554Vs ), and we have hundreds of epi studies like this one showing airborne transmission. This one is from 45 feet away. Facing the opposite direction. https://t.co/T1pDKcf
To derive 3 ACH estimate, we can look at a highly cited paper in NEJM (Apr, 2020) in which it took 3 hours for the viable virus in aerosols (TCID50 of SARS-Cov-2) to drop from 3,162 to 501 per liter of air. (2/4) https://t.co/e8Oo1f0NJW
@Stormageddon666 2… bereits im April 2020 diese Daten in NEJM zu SARS-CoV-2 und seiner Halbwertszeit in Aerosolen (und auf Oberflächen) publiziert waren. https://t.co/1JSy9hTZF4 https://t.co/Bt0Nr8pGlX
RT @Mayc_S09: Persistencia del COVID-19 en diferentes superficies, estudio publicado en The New England Journal of Medicine. Link: https:/…
I remember doing research and being bewildered at the failure of the CDC to announce that SARS-CoV-2 was airborne when the definition for airborne matched the characteristics of the virus. https://t.co/hnpQMD4Hqc
あと医療ガイドラインは変わっているからな😂
@bocchide_su そこは初期株から変わらず言われてるよ https://t.co/JFpUEGyiHg
RT @humblesci: The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was eviden…
RT @humblesci: The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was eviden…
RT @humblesci: The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was eviden…
RT @humblesci: The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was eviden…
RT @humblesci: The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was eviden…
RT @humblesci: The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was eviden…
#OriginOfCovid meets #CovidIsAirborne 👍
The confidence with which the @WHO asserted that SARS-CoV-2 was not airborne on 28/Mar is astounding. Given there was evidence to suggest exactly the opposite published 17/Mar https://t.co/7gSokoFtFC
@VidanosBosques @siqueira__andre errado, foi provado que contaminação por superfície não é o principal meio, mas é possível. E quanto à fala de que ele se desativa pouco tempo fora de um organismo, também está errado. Ele pode ficar até três dias, ativado
Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 | NEJM https://t.co/pJiTCZxwsg
@MediaSocial001 @TRLovetheUSA @JeromeAdamsMD Covid is deactivated by heat... it is deactivated more quickly the higher the heat levels. 30 minutes at 56C 15 minutes at 65C 3 minutes at 95C https://t.co/rrAOWGEcCg
@MediaSocial001 @TRLovetheUSA @JeromeAdamsMD Aerosolizd Covid can remain suspended in air for up to 3 hours. Covid can live on steel and plastic for up to 72 hrs.... Scientific Research published in NewEngland Journal of Medicine. https://t.co/rrAOWGEcCg
I need to correct this. The study proved the particles infectious, but not able to stay air-bound. "a rotating drum: provide environment where terminal settling velocity of 2-3 μm particles is overcome by rotational drum speed, thereby providing a static
@Daoyu15 @Ticklicker56 Here’s 6ft (200cm) in 1 hr https://t.co/l4QEuSxE8i Virus on surface 3 days https://t.co/wBSCIhcK2K Really only lab that can do these aerosol test are Munster & RML and why he’s my primary suspect https://t.co/pca5M1rBen
@BillyBostickson @pathogenetics Indeed! Nebulizer on list. why Fauci put all aerosol specialist on NIH payroll (Fouchier Yoshi Munster) https://t.co/QAgCN9pH4X
RT @LazarusLong13: How much more stable is omicron (BA.2 should be similar) than WT? 193.5 hours versus 72 hours. About 63%. Which would…
RT @jhas5: @NateWeymouth @R_H_Ebright Plasmids with a ‘human specific’ furin cleavage are potentially contagious & easy to aerosol for bat…
RT @jhas5: @NateWeymouth @R_H_Ebright Plasmids with a ‘human specific’ furin cleavage are potentially contagious & easy to aerosol for bat…
@NateWeymouth @R_H_Ebright Plasmids with a ‘human specific’ furin cleavage are potentially contagious & easy to aerosol for bat vax test? We generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolize
RT @LazarusLong13: How much more stable is omicron (BA.2 should be similar) than WT? 193.5 hours versus 72 hours. About 63%. Which would…
How much more stable is omicron (BA.2 should be similar) than WT? 193.5 hours versus 72 hours. About 63%. Which would be: 19 - > 7. So, 7 to 1 odds. But. Omicron Study : https://t.co/e3wro3FSbN Article: https://t.co/vldIQDxTQG WT - 72 hours. ht
How RML & WIV would aerosol SARS2 for bat vax trial “generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment” https://t.co/ZeEmlBrhLl
@valuechasing @pathogenetics @Rossana38510044 @MonaRahalkar @humblesci @BiophysicsFL @gdemaneuf These labs use “a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment” RML paper weeks after receiving sequence (bac
@TuomasJMattila @RommieAmaro Laboratorioissa tehdyissä tutkimuksissa koronavirus on pysynyt tartuttamiskykyisenä kolmesta 16 tuntiin. https://t.co/H4at8yuG2O https://t.co/nxmX2EntuN
@MeuriceRobert @MajaJantje @roodborstje11 Ik heb het nog eens opgezocht, had in 2020 al gelezen dat het uren in de lucht kan hangen: https://t.co/6avtcR1qcH
RT @flsciencemom: @tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton Actual Data: Aerosolized viral particles https://t.co/XS3IvWsfeS Aer…
RT @flsciencemom: @tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton Actual Data: Aerosolized viral particles https://t.co/XS3IvWsfeS Aer…
RT @flsciencemom: @tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton Actual Data: Aerosolized viral particles https://t.co/XS3IvWsfeS Aer…
RT @flsciencemom: @tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton Actual Data: Aerosolized viral particles https://t.co/XS3IvWsfeS Aer…
RT @dentalchanneluk: An often quoted paper published two years ago: Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1…
An often quoted paper published two years ago: Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 (NEJM 17/03/20) #covid-19 https://t.co/HKHYCIDafl
@tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton No, only those that are .3 and larger... Covid is .12 microns. That is why despite full protective measures healthcare workers were infected anyway. I’ll keep posting:
@tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton @tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller N95s only block 95% of particles .3 microns & LARGER. (This does not take into account high flow channels and dispersal of viral shed/acquisition through gaps). Or Ze
@tachyonspeed55 @ryan_seller @Rsa574 @timothyjlayton Actual Data: Aerosolized viral particles https://t.co/XS3IvWsfeS Aerosolized transmition not avoided by N95 https://t.co/chyIeqcNDS Aerosols=stronger illness https://t.co/sV6oRljlxT workers infected desp
RT @dancalegria: https://t.co/Pu0FQRZnF6 If we look at the actual article, it should be interpreted as aerosol very likely, surfaces not so…
@MonaRahalkar Possibly they are referring to a study to be published in NEJM with Vincent Munster about aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2. My guess: facility = research facility. https://t.co/0MFBNhVi4T
@MonaRahalkar Ur right. That is odd. Entire email just refers to convo So Munster by May had lied about FCS. RML infected & dissected ~30 monkeys. Published aerosol paper https://t.co/ZeEmlBrhLl https://t.co/qYQNUFeDeb
RT @dancalegria: https://t.co/Pu0FQRZnF6 If we look at the actual article, it should be interpreted as aerosol very likely, surfaces not so…
RT @dancalegria: https://t.co/Pu0FQRZnF6 If we look at the actual article, it should be interpreted as aerosol very likely, surfaces not so…
@dave_democracy @Jenmet4 @Dorina335 @spaceangel1964 FWIW: this is the medical journal article originally indicating that the virus can live on surfaces for up to 3 days and triggered the cleaning regimes https://t.co/s6STf1JEYY
RT @sashafrp2: @nisslbodies @RachelAlter007 You have no idea what you are talking about. Masks prevent the spittle. You will get covid from…
Masks prevent the spittle, not aerosols. You will get Covid from aerosols which can stay up to 3 hours airborne and are about 200-300x too small to be caught in the best n95 masks. https://t.co/7KiFOxdwD4
新冠病毒能在紙箱表面存活 24 小時,在塑膠、不銹鋼表面存活 72 小時。 » Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 | NEJM https://t.co/x2v03anh6E
RT @SaraGilEdwards1: 5/Transmisión aerosoles y fómites #SARSCoV2 es factible,ya q🦠puede permanecer viable e infeccioso en aerosoles💨durante…
@TomAver21243985 It's been far worse for some... https://t.co/AgGNCPlpnp Noting: https://t.co/9V45I26UnY https://t.co/NywZzm0nCb When the statistics developed showing the outcomes on children, will we forgot as easily as we can be shown to have done bef
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
Awkward: SAGE 103, 13 Jan 2022 '12. Work is also underway to review emerging evidence on survival of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols, though there remains strong evidence for the effectiveness of measures such as ventilation.' Mar 17 2020: #COVIDisAirborne https
RT @aromi317oakleaf: 元の論文URLを中辻先生が挙げていらっしゃいました。ご関心のある方はこちらを。
@jamesplloyd “A study did find that the COVID-19 virus can remain viable on cardboard for about 24 hours, and up to 3 days on plastic. However, this is under laboratory conditions using lots of virus, and unlikely to be representative of most real-world si
So let's look at a more focused study, published NEJM in April 2020, it looked at the surface survivability of COVID-19 and compared the rates to SARS1. The study found that on cardboard, no viable COVID-19 could be detected after 24 hours. https://t.co/
@punnyplatapus @the_real_deepee @KCCINews New England Journal of Medicine, April 2020. It was known to be aerosolized. https://t.co/4UwAp9fNUl
With the #OmicronVarient being so transmissible, does the surface suitability study 4/2020 become more relevant? #Omicron Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 | NEJM https://t.co/As118SN5XH
以上、こちらのGuardianの記事を抜粋してdeeplで自動翻訳したもの。 https://t.co/uteMTAdSQ8 元論文はこちら。 https://t.co/cVRPflDFWN
Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 https://t.co/Tff26oDLPp Experimental aerosol survival of SARS-CoV-2 in artificial saliva and tissue culture media at medium and high humidity https://t.co/57FAf1L4Ot
@bacigalupe En superficies: https://t.co/JpGQ69nhqa; https://t.co/OyMTfm7JFW; https://t.co/1DUKo9tIjs. En mascarillas: https://t.co/oqsGQQTCtL; https://t.co/d9CipC4pfw; https://t.co/vBjvOY7R11. De que hay evidencia hay.
@Mans3710 Voy a hacer algo mejor. Le voy a presentar SUS estudios de cobre en superficie. Estos son ambos. https://t.co/rBLjqf2Y6q https://t.co/IrKdOjcOIO Y también la advertencia de la FDA a compañías que venden mascarillas con "metales antimicrobianos
RT @fujikurok: Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 | NEJM https://t.co/Ti3Qq0nCK8
Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1 | NEJM https://t.co/Ti3Qq0nCK8
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
RT @norionakatsuji: “Covid loses 90% of ability to infect within minutes in air – study | Coronavirus | The Guardian“ 元論文→ https://t.co/CGx…
RT @QBK_jitensya: やっぱりマスクと換気がだいじ >ウイルスは20分以内に感染性の9割を失う そしてマスクの種類と距離も重要 2mの範囲内でノーマスク同士なら15分で感染するが、布マスク同士やウレタン同士なら27分、サージカル同士なら1時間 N95マスク同士な…
RT @jmcrookston: ———. ‘Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1’. New England Journal of Medicine 382, no. 1…
RT @DRTomlinsonEP: June 2020: @jonotter @DidierPittet et al Commenting on https://t.co/oiCHIKRZsS 🥁🥁 /6 https://t.co/TTg9WQnf4g