(Trimmed the above quote down just to make it easier on the page but left this bit so you know what I'm replying to)
Ultimately it is a matter of semantics, but to make SARS-COV2 fit a definition of airborne transmission the scientific community is having to redefine the parameters of droplet-based transmission and as yet still hasn't been done - just
'compelling' cases put forwards as to why SARS-COV2 as airborne.
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n913SARS-COV2 is not airborne transmissible within the parameters of the existing definition. The way I (and others far smarter than I) see this debate is that the lancet article you cited (amongst other papers) is essentially proposing the extension of the parameters of droplet transmission and then shifting this into airborne transmission within those extended parameters
and within specific environment (mainly poorly ventilated indoor spaces).
"Cases of transmission from people more than 2 m apart have occurred but in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, and typically with extended exposure to an infected person of more than 30 min"https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanr ... 13-2600(20)30514-2/fulltext
It is an important observation, but it is a long way from confirming that SARS-COV2 is airborne transmissible (hence why it is currently a debate within the scientific community)
The existing definition for airborne transmission is that generally, particles under 5 microns (droplet nuclei) can stay suspended in the air for long/indefinite periods of time whereas particles above this size (droplet transmission) can stay airborne for less time. In the case of the former, contamination can occur after the removal of a host, in the case of the latter infection occurs when the host is present.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_(medicine)
There is some confusion and debate that arises from the fact the molecule of SARS-COV2 (Covid19) is only 0.1microns so could theoretically be light enough for airborne transmission. However, the same argument put forward as to why a mask with why an N95 protection is effective despite theoretically the holes within the filters being larger than the virus molecules, is also valid for why COVID19 would be droplet transmission based in all but very, very specific environments.
Basically
"the virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material."https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/fact ... 343537002/The debate about whether COVID19 is airborne is not settled but it is evident COVID19 does not fall within the existing parameters of airborne transmission in the overwhelming majority of conditions. If it is to be reclassified that is a shift in a long-standing definition that has stood for many years to a new definition, which is one that has not even been clearly defined as yet.
The WHO has made a very slight acquiescence to the potential of SARS-COV2 being potentially airborne with the following statement:
In the context of COVID-19, airborne transmission may be possible in specific circumstances and settings in which procedures or support treatments that generate aerosols are performed; i.e., endotracheal intubation, bronchoscopy, open suctioning, administration of nebulized treatment, manual ventilation before intubation, turning the patient to the prone position, disconnecting the patient from the ventilator, non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation, tracheostomy, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This almost reads like a disclaimer in my eyes (i.e it may be possible in very specific conditions so WHO won't rule it out in case it bites them on the arse, but is highly unlikely), but I'll gladly acknowledge it is some layer of acknowledgement of the redefinition of airborne transmission relating to COVID19.
OK why is this even important? The reason why it is particularly important for this definition to be understood is twofold.
Firstly, our understanding of the transmission mechanism is dictating mitigation protocols such as social distancing measures. Imprecise language can only ever lead to imprecise guidance, which leads to ineffective policy.
Secondly, as we know that SARS-COV2 is capable of intraspecies transmission and as far as I am aware all coronaviruses are zoonotic (have come from animals). If COVID was truly airborne in its original definition we should be thinking seriously about mass culling of huge swathes of potentially susceptible animals as if the disease is airborne, and animals can be infected, then a free moving population of animal hosts would be a potential catalyst for a far bigger crisis than it already is.
This wouldn't just be bats and pangolins either.
From the CDC -
we know that companion animals like cats and dogs, big cats in zoos or sanctuaries, gorillas in zoos, mink on farms, and a few other mammals can be infected with SARS-CoV-2https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... imals.htmlSo there is a good reason why the scientific community is
debating whether SARS-COV2 is airborne or not. The ramifications of it being airborne are massive. The understanding of how far droplet transmission is effective is critical in how we approach further mitigation. There is a valid discussion to be had undoubtedly.
However, the nuance of that debate if I'm to be blunt, just doesn't fit in with your description of:
"if you have covid and cough then the droplets become airbourne, it is transmitted through the air and can travel a fair distance!"That is factually an incorrect description and is in fact a definition of droplet-based transmission. However, given you made a point of outlining your credentials a lot of people will take what you say at face value, but it was wrong within the scientific definitions as they currently stand. It is quite an important debate to be had at the minute because as I say the ramifications could be huge if it were to be airborne transmissible.
End of the day, I just feel that there is already enough incorrect information out there and those with less experience of the subject matter could leap to further assumptions at a time when hyperbole and fear are already at maximum levels. Someone with a longstanding medical background stating that COVID19 is airborne transmissible can just feed further confirmation bias of the very pervasive and dangerous levels of fear that many people have at this moment.
There was one poster on here a while back that literally stated this was an extinction-level event. That is not rational thought. However, I don't blame the poster particularly, it is something of an extreme example of what many are feeling, but it is the direct result of over 12-months worth of bombardment of exaggerated danger levels. (see my other long, boring post in this thread)
I just think it is more important now than ever before for the discussion to be balanced so people can make more rationalised choices, so I wanted to present the other side of the debate, for those of us who do not have an extensive background in the medical profession and to hopefully do so with reasonable supporting evidence and most importantly in a civil tone - which was my intention.
Finally, just to say very explicitly, I have zero quarrels with you personally Guv, I genuinely like a lot of your posts, I agree with some and not others but that is what life is all about right?
Additionally, I'd just like to say I have huge admiration, gratitude and respect for anyone and everyone who has dedicated their lives to helping others as you clearly have spent your life in the medical profession. Back to work now though so will leave it at that (think I've hit my quota of boring long posts on the site for this week anyway) Will stick to the footy posts for the weekend so you can all breathe a sigh of relief.