Tania Taylor Powers
@taniataylorpowers.bsky.social
Covid Conscious Cutie part of the Still Coviding community! Antizionist Jew! Immune compromised warrior battling Long Covid & fighting fascists. Pro Peace & Love & Intersectionality & human rights for all! None of us are free until all of us are free!
www.unmc.edu/healthsecuri... @matthabusby.bsky.social @telegraph.co.uk @theatlantic.com @npr.org if you suffer from #urgentnormalsyndrome it is ok to pls seek help
If You Suffer from Urgent Normal Syndrome, Ask for Help
Ko-Fi A woman finds a mask in her coat pocket, leftover from the 2021 mandate. It triggers such a violent emotional reaction in her mind that she throws the mask across the room and starts sobbing,…
www.unmc.edu
December 21, 2025 at 5:11 PM
www.unmc.edu/healthsecuri... @matthabusby.bsky.social @telegraph.co.uk @theatlantic.com @npr.org if you suffer from #urgentnormalsyndrome it is ok to pls seek help
Hey @matthabusby.bsky.social @telegraph.co.uk do you care to answer why you failed to include Jenn’s interview after she generously gave u her time & experience as a caregiver & how the hospital exposed her Mom to #healthcareaquiredinfection because it isn’t just covid that is #airborne
He also interviewed my friend Jenn & used her photo & photo of her Mom but failed to include any of the interview she gave him including how her Mom got infected w/ RSV at the Hospital.
December 21, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Hey @matthabusby.bsky.social @telegraph.co.uk do you care to answer why you failed to include Jenn’s interview after she generously gave u her time & experience as a caregiver & how the hospital exposed her Mom to #healthcareaquiredinfection because it isn’t just covid that is #airborne
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
He spoke to some people, and ignored a lot of others. www.reddit.com/r/ZeroCovidC...
Telegraph newspaper long read on Zero Covid
www.reddit.com
December 20, 2025 at 1:56 PM
He spoke to some people, and ignored a lot of others. www.reddit.com/r/ZeroCovidC...
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
Loeb et al 2022 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36442064/ has numerous flaws uncovered by Mark Ungrin et al osf.io/preprints/me... One of those problems was adding in sites to the study when data for the first few sites were trending the wrong direction.
(11/n)
(11/n)
Medical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for Preventing COVID-19 Among Health Care Workers : A Randomized Trial - PubMed
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
December 20, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Loeb et al 2022 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36442064/ has numerous flaws uncovered by Mark Ungrin et al osf.io/preprints/me... One of those problems was adding in sites to the study when data for the first few sites were trending the wrong direction.
(11/n)
(11/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
In Radonovich et al 2019, subjects were only instructed to wear masks or respirators when within six feet of patients. This totally ignores small-aerosol transmission, which is a key part of the argument why respirators would work better. jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
(10/n)
(10/n)
N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Health Care Personnel
This cluster randomized clinical trial compares the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks worn by health care personnel for prevention of workplace-acquired influenza and other viral respiratory ...
jamanetwork.com
December 20, 2025 at 1:21 AM
In Radonovich et al 2019, subjects were only instructed to wear masks or respirators when within six feet of patients. This totally ignores small-aerosol transmission, which is a key part of the argument why respirators would work better. jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
(10/n)
(10/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
This isn't the only failing of your article. The Cochrane review was so extremely misleading that the editors of the journal had to issue a clarification statement. And the studies on which it relied are themselves quite flawed.
(9/n)
(9/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:20 AM
This isn't the only failing of your article. The Cochrane review was so extremely misleading that the editors of the journal had to issue a clarification statement. And the studies on which it relied are themselves quite flawed.
(9/n)
(9/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
It's not "worldview shifting" when it's a minor point in the well-known delta story, when it has no bearing on exposure intervals less than an hour, and ultimately is part of the background to the decisions we made to go our own way.
(8/n)
(8/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:19 AM
It's not "worldview shifting" when it's a minor point in the well-known delta story, when it has no bearing on exposure intervals less than an hour, and ultimately is part of the background to the decisions we made to go our own way.
(8/n)
(8/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
But delta *was* incredible infectious, Delta and omicron were together extremely deadly, and the time frame when many countries gave up, and when those of us avoiding Covid became a small minority.
(7/n)
(7/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:18 AM
But delta *was* incredible infectious, Delta and omicron were together extremely deadly, and the time frame when many countries gave up, and when those of us avoiding Covid became a small minority.
(7/n)
(7/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
This paper contrasts the delta variant to the original SARS-CoV-2: "Given the rapid emergence of the Delta variant, it is surprising to find that the Delta variant is less aero-stable than the OS virus and other variants in the aerosol phase (RH > 40%)."
(6/n)
(6/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:15 AM
This paper contrasts the delta variant to the original SARS-CoV-2: "Given the rapid emergence of the Delta variant, it is surprising to find that the Delta variant is less aero-stable than the OS virus and other variants in the aerosol phase (RH > 40%)."
(6/n)
(6/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
There was no big community blow-up over this paper (except in your source's mind) nor is it ignored by people who still avoid Covid. In particular one of its figures gets shared from time to time as an indication of the different environmental factors influencing viral survival.
(5/n)
(5/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:14 AM
There was no big community blow-up over this paper (except in your source's mind) nor is it ignored by people who still avoid Covid. In particular one of its figures gets shared from time to time as an indication of the different environmental factors influencing viral survival.
(5/n)
(5/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
The researchers themselves say "The data reported in this study fully support three mitigation techniques: improved ventilation, social distancing and mask wearing; all are key to minimizing the number of infectious droplets reaching another person with the virus still infectious."
(4/n)
(4/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:13 AM
The researchers themselves say "The data reported in this study fully support three mitigation techniques: improved ventilation, social distancing and mask wearing; all are key to minimizing the number of infectious droplets reaching another person with the virus still infectious."
(4/n)
(4/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
In your own reporting, you imply this article proves that SARS-CoV-2 is stable for less than an hour in air. So what if it is? Most of the exposure scenarios we're avoiding involve people being in a space at the same time or the preceding hour.
(3/n)
(3/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:11 AM
In your own reporting, you imply this article proves that SARS-CoV-2 is stable for less than an hour in air. So what if it is? Most of the exposure scenarios we're avoiding involve people being in a space at the same time or the preceding hour.
(3/n)
(3/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
You appear to be referring to Haddrell et al royalsocietypublishing.org/rsif/article..., “Differences in airborne stability of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is impacted by alkalinity of surrogates of respiratory aerosol” (2/n)
Differences in airborne stability of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is impacted by alkalinity of surrogates of respiratory aerosol
Abstract. The mechanistic factors hypothesized to be key drivers for the loss of infectivity of viruses in the aerosol phase often remain speculative. Usin
royalsocietypublishing.org
December 20, 2025 at 1:07 AM
You appear to be referring to Haddrell et al royalsocietypublishing.org/rsif/article..., “Differences in airborne stability of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is impacted by alkalinity of surrogates of respiratory aerosol” (2/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
Among the absurd claims of your poorly researched article, this stands out: that we who still avoid Covid somehow ignored "worldview-shifting science" in a 2023 Royal Society paper. Let's have a look at that paper, shall we?
(1/n)
(1/n)
December 20, 2025 at 1:05 AM
Among the absurd claims of your poorly researched article, this stands out: that we who still avoid Covid somehow ignored "worldview-shifting science" in a 2023 Royal Society paper. Let's have a look at that paper, shall we?
(1/n)
(1/n)
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
Shoutout to @dont-inhale-virus.bsky.social for bringing this up. They wrote their own thread here, give it a read:
bsky.app/profile/dont...
bsky.app/profile/dont...
Among the absurd claims of your poorly researched article, this stands out: that we who still avoid Covid somehow ignored "worldview-shifting science" in a 2023 Royal Society paper. Let's have a look at that paper, shall we?
(1/n)
(1/n)
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Shoutout to @dont-inhale-virus.bsky.social for bringing this up. They wrote their own thread here, give it a read:
bsky.app/profile/dont...
bsky.app/profile/dont...
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
Anyway, those are my thoughts on this piece of trash article.
If anyone is wondering, the “journalist” didn’t reach out to me for clarification about my research.
SHOCKER.
If anyone is wondering, the “journalist” didn’t reach out to me for clarification about my research.
SHOCKER.
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Anyway, those are my thoughts on this piece of trash article.
If anyone is wondering, the “journalist” didn’t reach out to me for clarification about my research.
SHOCKER.
If anyone is wondering, the “journalist” didn’t reach out to me for clarification about my research.
SHOCKER.
Hey @matthabusby.bsky.social @telegraph.co.uk just want to make sure you know how incorrect your take is on all platforms
One of the reasons why I go so hard on science misinformation/disinformation, is that as a working scientist it is frustrating to see your research misreported to push an agenda.
For example, consider this piece of right-wing propaganda from The Telegraph that was just published
For example, consider this piece of right-wing propaganda from The Telegraph that was just published
December 21, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Hey @matthabusby.bsky.social @telegraph.co.uk just want to make sure you know how incorrect your take is on all platforms
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
The thread as a shareable webpage: https://skywriter.blue/pages/did:plc:szegc7ynwavfjaehfcbregyy/post/3mahbzwpk7227.
Page by Al Haddrell | @ukhadds.bsky.social - skywriter.blue
One of the reasons why I go so hard on science misinformation/disinformation, is that as a working scientist it is frustrating to see your research misreported to push an agenda.
For example, consider this piece of right-wing propaganda from The Telegraph that was just published...
skywriter.blue
December 21, 2025 at 1:28 AM
The thread as a shareable webpage: https://skywriter.blue/pages/did:plc:szegc7ynwavfjaehfcbregyy/post/3mahbzwpk7227.
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
@unroll.skywriter.blue unroll please
December 21, 2025 at 1:28 AM
@unroll.skywriter.blue unroll please
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
And the “reporter” who mischaracterized your research is on here! His handle is matthabusby — you can contact him directly and see what he has to say for that.
December 21, 2025 at 6:34 AM
And the “reporter” who mischaracterized your research is on here! His handle is matthabusby — you can contact him directly and see what he has to say for that.
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
Airborne disease transmission is complicated, and the implementation of impactful mitigation strategies requires us to understand every aspect of this process. When widely circulated newspapers publish misinformation about what the literature is showing, the public is disserved.
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Airborne disease transmission is complicated, and the implementation of impactful mitigation strategies requires us to understand every aspect of this process. When widely circulated newspapers publish misinformation about what the literature is showing, the public is disserved.
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
Faster than expected decay does not mean masks don’t work. Faulty logic, “A” doesn’t lead to “B”.
Again, an hour is a long time.
Again, an hour is a long time.
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Faster than expected decay does not mean masks don’t work. Faulty logic, “A” doesn’t lead to “B”.
Again, an hour is a long time.
Again, an hour is a long time.
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
This may come to a surprise to Mattha, but people have known for ages that short distance transmission was very important for many reasons beyond viral decay.
Also, masking helps in short distance transmission as well. Why does this need to be said?
Also, masking helps in short distance transmission as well. Why does this need to be said?
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
This may come to a surprise to Mattha, but people have known for ages that short distance transmission was very important for many reasons beyond viral decay.
Also, masking helps in short distance transmission as well. Why does this need to be said?
Also, masking helps in short distance transmission as well. Why does this need to be said?
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
According to The Telegraph's logic, our Nature paper would validate the ZC community.
By ignoring the Nature paper, it shows that this article lazy, hack BS.
By ignoring the Nature paper, it shows that this article lazy, hack BS.
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
According to The Telegraph's logic, our Nature paper would validate the ZC community.
By ignoring the Nature paper, it shows that this article lazy, hack BS.
By ignoring the Nature paper, it shows that this article lazy, hack BS.
Reposted by Tania Taylor Powers
I can not stress this enough:
1) The Telegraph misrepresents our paper (“inactivate within an hour”)
2) They claim this discredits the zero-covid community
3) They ignore our much more impactful follow-up article that contradicts their claim
1) The Telegraph misrepresents our paper (“inactivate within an hour”)
2) They claim this discredits the zero-covid community
3) They ignore our much more impactful follow-up article that contradicts their claim
December 20, 2025 at 10:49 PM
I can not stress this enough:
1) The Telegraph misrepresents our paper (“inactivate within an hour”)
2) They claim this discredits the zero-covid community
3) They ignore our much more impactful follow-up article that contradicts their claim
1) The Telegraph misrepresents our paper (“inactivate within an hour”)
2) They claim this discredits the zero-covid community
3) They ignore our much more impactful follow-up article that contradicts their claim