Here we go again. . .
Before this goes viral, actual experts are saying this CNBC headline does not accurately reflect what the study says:
MIT researchers say you're no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies https://t.co/lV8NTxuB78
— CNBC (@CNBC) April 23, 2021
From engineering professor Linsey Marr who just happens to have expertise with the airborne transmission of viruses:
Please fix this headline, as the model they used ASSUMES that the room is instantaneously and continuously well-mixed, like if you blow a smoke ring, it immediately spreads evenly throughout the room in zero seconds. The headline is a tautology. @zeynep /1
— Linsey Marr (@linseymarr) April 24, 2021
Sure, but who would click on this boring headline, right?
Suggestion: "Coronavirus can accumulate in the air to hazardous levels if ventilation is insufficient" /2
— Linsey Marr (@linseymarr) April 24, 2021
And:
This is a silly headline, as the model ASSUMES instantaneously and continuously well-mixed conditions, like if you blow a smoke ring, the moment it exits your mouth it immediate spreads evenly throughout the room. Under such conditions, of course distance doesn't matter!
— Linsey Marr (@linseymarr) April 24, 2021
More from The Atlantic’s Zeynep Tufekci:
Before this gets out of hand. "Distance doesn't matter" IS NOT what "it's airborne" or primarily aerosol-transmitted means or implies, and the headline is not reflecting correctly a modeling paper they are using says. Calling in @linseymarr and @jljcolorado among others. https://t.co/GpKouXPL0m
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
Recommended
What's true is that in a "well-mixed" room (VERY IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION IN THE MODEL IN THAT PAPER BEING REPORTED ON), if you spend long enough time, distance isn't *completely* protective which IS NOT AT ALL THE same as "distance doesn't matter" or that 6 and 60 feet are the same.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
She’s also quoting from experts on the subject:
Perhaps the most important misunderstanding has been assuming aerosols=long distance only. No, they do not teleport from a person to over two feet away a la "beam it over there, Scotty." Aerosols ALSO concentrate around the person and dilute with distance. https://t.co/HFlqsUfv3r
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
And:
I'd suggest that it doesn't help to jump from "distance isn't fully protective especially if you sit long enough in an enclosed space where the air keeps mixing" to headlines like "6 feet and 60 feet are the same!". Again @linseymarr and others have great work on this.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
One major problem is that the media isn’t getting any better at its job:
Another from an expert.Of course aerosol concentration dilutes with distance (and very quickly outdoors for obvious reasons!) but if the space is enclosed, they can keep accumulating, and "6 feet" isn't some magic bubble—especially if you stay long enough. https://t.co/86EnDAUDfK
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
Yet, it’s been hours now and that tweet is still up:
Adding. It goes without saying that I'm just a vehicle here, reflecting years of research on this topic by many scientists. I'd like that headline corrected, at a minimum, though, @RichMendezCNBC. Telling people distance doesn't matter at all isn't okay. https://t.co/fPDlA9NlQd
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
CNBC, however, is refusing to correct it. From Dawn Kopecki, senior editor at CNBC:
I’m sorry you don’t agree with the study’s conclusions, but if you read the full article you will see that the headline and article are accurate. That is what they told us.
— Dawn Kopecki (@Dawn_Kopecki) April 23, 2021
Yeah, that’s not going over well:
Maybe you should talk to some people who've been publishing in this very field for years? Even if they told you that, it is a dangerous, misleading headline to put there that you should check with others (not me!). This is not some empty science field.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
It's not okay to put such a big claim in the headline with nobody else consulted even if, as you say, two MIT professors who have not published in this field before (with all due respect to their model) told you that's what their study means: that distance doesn't matter at all.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
A good many people in this field, who acknowledge and have published on airborne transmission for years, are in this thread explaining the problem. I could recommend more. Could you check with them and others before telling people that a life-saving mitigation is useless?
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
And she’s still digging!
We would love to talk with them, but this story wasn’t about their opinions, it was about the conclusions of the MIT researchers.
— Dawn Kopecki (@Dawn_Kopecki) April 23, 2021
CNBC, do better:
It's not their "opinions", it's the overwhelming if not the complete consensus of the field of people who actually publish on this topic and have for a long time. Again, your model is a "well-mixed" room. If you want to keep a dangerously misleading headline up, I can't stop you.
— zeynep tufekci (@zeynep) April 23, 2021
Join the conversation as a VIP Member