No, the WHO was right, and still is, epidemiologically speaking. The problem is that there is a difference in meaning between "this virus is airborne" and "this virus can spread through the air via aerosols".
The former means that the virus itself can survive being exposed to the air, which means it can float for hours and spread easily over large distances.
The latter means that the virus can only survive in the air when encapsulated in a liquid, which means it can not hover in the air for long (due to the weight of the droplet) and thus not spead over large distances.
oh I get it, the virus teleports from the patient to the surface, no air transmission. /s
(you're splitting hairs, and the implied medical advice will actually kill people who follow it - much MUCH MUCH safer to simply say "airborne" to the general public, who need a simpler model than this)
You claim "If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't" yet provide no evidence.
But looking at you history you have provided exactly evidence that it is airborne "Video showing microdroplets suspending in air (vimeo.com)" a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776194)
And to quote from another commenter "The part showing how a single cough can create a room-wide cloud of virus that lingers for 20+ minutes in spaces with poor circulation was especially enlightening."
Having watched the vid I can confirm that's what they show, at least as a simulation.
Even the main article says (I'm re-quoting from another of my posts): "There is a big dispute in the scientific community, however, about both the size and the behavior of these particles, and the resolution of that question would change many recommendations about staying safe. Many scientists believe that the virus is emitted from our mouths also in much smaller particles, which are infectious but also tiny enough that they can remain suspended in the air, float around, be pushed by air currents, and accumulate in enclosed spaces" which directly opposes what you say.
How is your parent post not either plain wrong or deliberately sowing confusion? I'm flagging you.
Yes, it is, but IIRC the term "airborne" can also refer to disease particles that can survive in the air unencapsulated (such as certain fungi), and can therefore travel quite some distance, and can remain hanging in the air for hours.
Aerosols are heavier than air, and therefore have a very limited range and duration in which the virus can remain "airborne" in common parlance.
(edit: expanded the definition to include more than just viruses as I couldn't find an example of a virus that can survive unencapsulated)
Well that March 2020 quote is still correct, isn't it? You as a layperson just think that airborne means something it doesn't mean for virologists (aerosol transmission <> airborne virus).
So the tweet certainly was a typical science communication error, i.e. they forgot that words can have different meanings in different milieus, but it wasn't wrong.
>One wonders if the virus is now "airborne"? Is that something viruses can actually do, ontop of being passed on through water droplets after coughing/sneezing.
It always has been. The virus is aerosolized through exhalation, and spreads much like secondhand smoke [0].
The virus isn't truly airborne. The respiratory droplets can be carried in the air short distances, but direct infection from that is extremely unlikely outside of someone literally sneezing in your face.
This is in contrast to diseases like anthrax, where particles can be carried on air currents basically indefinitely and direct infection from the airborne disease is likely.
reply