Talk:Transmission of COVID-19/Archive 1

Unexplained removal of large sections of the page
I've reverted your TNT removal of large sections of the page, as I couldn't figure out what the purpose for this was (and it resulted in large amounts of information being lost). If you want to repeat the edit, that's fine, but I'd prefer if you explain your rationale on the talk page and try to reach consensus with other article contributors first. jp×g 17:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believed it needed a full rewrite. Ive tried to keep parts of what was left, however the article as it stands today still needs expansion and cutting. The article as it was originally written by the CDC's paid editor overwrote very good previous wording taken from other articles, to parrot almost the exact wording of the CDC, when multiple other agencies disagreed with them. It then received an incorrect DYK promotion. This paid tendentious editing needs to be closely scrutinized. --Investigatory (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this quote says it all and is worthy of inclusion: "many scientists have known that airborne transmission of the virus was happening since February. The CDC somehow failed to recognize the accumulating evidence that airborne transmission is important and therefore failed to alert the public". That failure seems to be repeated in wikipedia. --144.130.152.65 (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This guy is relentless! --49.195.68.141 (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't object to that sentence in particular, and I will re-add it as I go through the edits to see if there's anything worth keeping. The reverted edits generally tend to misrepresent the sources, such as writing "Theoretically, it might transmit through indirect contact after touching a contaminated surface or object... but this has never been documented" when the source reads "There are no specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission... However, fomite transmission is considered a likely mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, given consistent findings about environmental contamination in the vicinity of infected cases  and the fact that other coronaviruses and respiratory viruses can transmit this way."  Also, the edits make incorrect statements about the relationship between respiratory droplets and aerosols, which are distinguished by more than their size.  Both of these are misstatements that have previously been pushed by banned user User:Investigatory/User:Edinburgh. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

infectious vs efficiency?
Regarding the sentence This is more infectious than influenza, but less so than measles, the cited references say "less efficient" and "more efficiently". This may be a dumb question, but are "more efficiently" and "more infectious" synonymous? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Theyre just using a lay word, either is fine. --Investigatory (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
This is a quick reference review for the opening paragraph, which needed some reference checking. I'll quote the sources first, and then briefly state the changes I've done.

Removal of opening sentence
Below is the opening paragraph from each source:

~

It's never mentioned, by any of the sources, that how the disease spreads is under investigation or is unknown. The opening sentence COVID-19 is a new disease, and how it spreads remains under investigation was removed (also, the source that was used never mentioned that). The words marked with emphasis check with the ones used in the article (the opening paragraph was slightly reworked).

Removal of public transport
Below are relevant paragraphs from each source:

~

Since none of the sources mention public transport, I removed it. Choirs replaced funerals. The cleanup tag was removed.

Hopefully, this is an improvement. Feelthhis (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Aerosol transmission misleadingly highly ranked
WHO and ECDC mention it as a possibility that should be further studied rather than a transmission method of equal right compared to droplet transmission. Should not this be phrased more carefully, because currently it leaves an impression that both transmission methods are equal. Typical examples of aerosol transmission is tuberculosis and measles, but COVID-19 is not really comparable. The problem seems to be rather with outdated and too rigid distinctions of droplets and aerosols as explained here. --Kamma (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. It is airborne, as per the WP:MEDRS sources including the British FAQ (the first citation). You are looking at the wrong WHO and ECDC pages, well out of date. --49.195.192.148 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NHS uses "is" for respiratory transmission within 2 metres, airborne transmission is described using modalities like "can" and "may also". Currently the claim that aerosol transmission "regularly occurs" is really wishful thinking and is not established in scientific briefs by relevant institutions. For example ECDC says aerosol transmission "has also been implicated but the relative role of large droplets and aerosols is still unclear", WHO says "more studies are underway to better understand the conditions in which aerosol transmission is occurring outside of medical facilities where specific medical procedures, called aerosol generating procedures, are conducted". CDC has a special scientific brief on "potential airborne transmission" (Oct 5th 2020) which says it "can occur under special circumstances" and although there are "several well-documented examples" of aerosol transmission, they "appear uncommon and have typically involved the presence of an infectious person producing respiratory droplets". There is no scientific consensus about aerosol/airborne transmission as major way how the virus spreads, although of course there are research papers which even claim that "failure in containing the propagation of COVID-19 pandemic worldwide is largely attributed to the unrecognized importance of airborne virus transmission". I think that this discussion can be described under aerosols section of an article, but aerosol/airborne transmission not ready to be included in first paragraph as an undisputed fact without modal qualifiers. And exactly for the reason that Wikipedia does not offer medical advice (I think from medical viewpoint extra caution for airborne transmission is fine). --Kamma (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * the WHO itself now state "Aerosol transmission can occur in specific settings, particularly in indoor, crowded and inadequately ventilated spaces, where infected person(s) spend long periods of time with others, such as restaurants, choir practices, fitness classes, nightclubs, offices and/or places of worship" your brief is out of date. The fact is the relative importance of droplet and airborne spread is unknown, wikipedia likes to preferene earlier sources repetitively --49.181.160.200 (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain why you say "my brief" is out of date, although I refer to latest briefs from NHS (date unknown, currently November 24th), WHO (July 9th, updated October 20th), ECDC (June 30th) and CDC (October 5th) in my summary above? By the way, you quote WHO brief (which I already quoted above), but link to NHS materials (from the same page I also referred above), please try to be precise! However, this is not really important, because all of the materials referred say the same thing I summarized above and which is that main transmission route is droplets while aerosol transmission a) is an extra possibility which is documented only for small number cases, b) is not usual airborne transmission in medical sense like tuberculosis and measles which need completely different type of procedures and measures and c) aerosol transmission still needs to be explained by research because current proof is not enough to make any further recommendations (basically what is admitted is that short range aerosol transmission of similar type with droplet transmission might be possible, which is to say that it's not airborne transmission in medical sense and health workers only need to pay extra attention while aerosols are generated with special equipment and maybe some other special cases, but otherwise act if this is common droplet infection). The most thorough report "Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Potential Airborne Transmission" is from CDC. As this is from October 5th it's well up to date and I suggest that this is to be consulted and referred for the context, if shorter documents from WHO, ECDC and NHS don't explain the issue of relative roles of droplet and aerosol transmission clearly enough. I personally also find "Is the coronavirus airborne? The latest CDC guidance, explained" (Vox, also October 5th) explaining the history and state of the issue very well. It's a commentary though, which is not really needed to make sense of official documents, but I would really recommend to consult in case medical jargon remains obscure. --Kamma (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What you are saying here does not reflect the sources. The latest guidance from all sources say that it is airborne in the strictly medical sense. The CDC says that it is uncommon, which places them in direct disagreement with the Public Health Agency of Canada who with their later guidance say that it is unclear which mode is more important. The WHO state that it is less common than respiratory droplets, which places them in direct disagreement with Canada the UK and the ECDC who say it is unclear which is more important. Wikipedia in the lead must therefore say it is unclear. In the body, each agency's current position is documented. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I am very unclear why many editors consider it cautious to deemphasize airborne transmission. It is the other way around - it is a precaution to err towards emphasizing it. Each iteration of each guidance/brief/update by each major public health agency the whole year recognizes it more and more, as the aerosol scientists and many researchers have been saying since February. But for clarity I have put exactly what agency/what government says as of today. All major agencies agree that it is an important mode of spread. The UK and Canada say it is unclear its relative importance to droplets, as does the ECDC. The WHO says current evidence droplets more common. The CDC say airborne appears to be less common. Therefore for the lead of this article, the summary is "not clear". --49.181.160.200 (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's correct to say in the lead paragraph that according to statements by WHO, ECDC, CDC, NHS there is airborne transmission of SARS-Cov-2, because it's a fact that they say there is -- at least in some sense. However, if you further explain it, then it's also a fact that they say it's airborne in a really restricted sense and more of a possibility to be studied further than well documented transmission route. Wikipedia shouldn't really make bets about what the scientists might discover in the end, because we don't know it until it's discovered and documented. We cannot make guesses based on our experience of the previous debate. Also we should not cherry pick the phrases from short FAQ etc materials to make it rhyme with our expectations, especially when we have longer and up to date scientific brief on the topic available that does not contradict shorter materials, but makes it well clear what they mean. Does that make sense? --Kamma (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They all agree that it is occuring, and you cannot preference the CDC source over the Public Health Agency of Canada and the other sources. Wikipedia has to reflect what the sources say, and now the article does. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You might be right, that Canadian PHA has the simplest wording, but all the agencies mentioned above use indicative "is" for droplet transmission and "can" or "may also" for aerosol transmission and they do it for a reason. Even Canada explains aerosol transmission with a caution saying that it's reported and it gives suggestions (indicating it's not really well established): "Reports of outbreaks in settings with poor ventilation suggest that infectious aerosols were /---/." FAQ and Q&A has to contain short statements that are well understood and don't raise any doubts and Canada has the most simple formulation, so if we want to understand what these short documents mean we have to look up a bit more elaborate documents like CDC's "Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 and Potential Airborne Transmission" mentioned above. I refer to this document only because it's the latest one that discusses airborne/aerosol transmission more thoroughly. Note that you accused me of quoting outdated sources above and this is my best bet. Do you suggest anything better from remarkable health institutions? --Kamma (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually it is not the latest one, the WHO, Public Health Agency of Canada and the UK Govt are all later. WHO states "airborne transmission is occurring" later in their FAQ. They are using "can" and "is" interchangeably. The UK Government (I believe this is Public Health England but this agency is in the process of being dissolved) simply say "droplets and aerosols". CDC have a longer brief with the contention that it "appears uncommon" to them, agreed, and in thier public facing FAQ they say "sometimes" but we say that in the body. ECDC have not updated their brief since June, but even then they were saying "the relative role of large droplets and aerosols is still unclear." In October they have state to use airborne precautions if possible for every suspect or confirmed case: "If possible, patients should be placed in single, airborne-precaution rooms with negative pressure and anteroom" - this applies in Estonia. The article today reliably replicates the sources.--49.180.100.63 (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also for your interest, it is impossible to complete a randomized controlled trial on this, the evidence comes in the form of animal studies, aerosol studies, virus culture, case reports and then just basic common sense and opinion. The agencies are all effectively stating an opinion. Therefore we can state their individual opinions summarized in the body. Feel free to expand on the CDC's opinion if you would like to, but please do not use Wikipedia's voice to do so. The CDC state etc etc etc for the statements you are suggesting. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As of May 2021, a number of organisations including "CDC" and WHO are recognising aerosol aka airborne transmission (ie. transmission via small (very roughly 10 micrometres or smaller) droplets, following published peer-reviewed work (eg see citations in aerosol/airborne transmission section). So I have updated the page to reflect both the peer-reviewed literature and newer CDC/WHO positions. If there is credible peer-reviewed or similar evidence that large (too large to travel more than a metre or two) droplets are responsible for transmission, please add it to the page - I don't know of any such evidence. But please note that as, CDC now state, both large and small droplets will be highest concentration near an infected person, so evidence for close transmission is not evidence for large-droplet transmission Rpsear (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Modality language describing the transmission
I am not native English speaker, so I might get this wrong, but it seems to be that using "particularly occurs" and adding "often" in following phrases suggests that it's well documented transmission mechanism with its properties explained and in these situations infection will definitely spread. If so, then this is not the case, since WHO, ECDC, CDC and NHS say it's rather a possibility to be further researched and that it is not documented to happen often, but there are only some cases where researchers claim that this has happened in a particular restaurant, choir practice, fitness class, nightclub, office and/or place of worship. So instead of "particularly occurs" correct would be "can occur" which is exactly the phrase that official materials use to describe it. I think this modality of "can" and "might" should not be glossed over and replaced with pure indicative in the article. --Kamma (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No agency says it is a possibility to be further researched. They all concur that it is occuring. The CDC says airborne less often, the WHO says droplets more common. The ECDC says that it is unknown which is more prevalent, as does the UK Government and the Public Health agency of Canada. Therefore it is not clear what method is more relatively important. Each of these sources is equally important, and in the lead it states it isn't clear as of November 2020, and in the body it states exactly which agency says what. That is how to avoid synthesis of the sources and original research. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) WHO Q&A has: "More studies are underway to better understand the conditions in which aerosol transmission is occurring /---/." (2) ECDC has: "Transmission through aerosols has also been implicated but the relative role of large droplets and aerosols is still unclear." CDC warns: "There are several critical questions that need to be answered to refine guidance for prevention of COVID-19, including /---/ What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are acquired through airborne transmission? What are the conditions that facilitate airborne transmission?" --Kamma (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I understand part of your concern. You would like the article to repetitively state "Further research is needed" - but this is discouraged in most places. We don't need to say it all the time, because it is redundant, further research is needed on quite literally everything. All of the agencies say that it can occur and you take this word to mean that it might or may occur. Can means that it does, not that it might. We say when it is unclear, or when there is no evidence. In fact there is no direct evidence of skin to skin contact or of fomite transmission, but each source considers it possible regardless. I think we replicate the sources fairly, even when they're inconsistent --144.130.152.1 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * WHO state "particularly occurs" in their FAQ. Their latest FAQ from october. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 12:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WHO Q&A has: "Aerosol transmission can occur in specific settings, particularly in [list of places]." Do you deliberately present false claims? I hope not. I have to flag the article disputed because we don't seem to be able to fix these issues in discussion here. --Kamma (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * One must include the public health agency of Canada and when the WHO says it can occur that means that it can occur. Not that it might. I think you are misunderstanding due to language here, as you suspect above. The word "can" as per the dictionary:

/kan,kən/ verb 1. be able to. They then state that it particularly occurs indoors. The reword is consistent with the source quoted. The CDC's view is also given prominence in the body. You have placed citation needed templates mid sentence when the citations required are at the end of the sentence, per standard practice WP:Inline citations. The article is fair, balanced and neutral as it stands, and it appears you have a differing point of view to several of the agencies. That's OK, but we can only say what the reliable sources say. —2001:8004:C83:9CC8:881D:EEAE:834:1460 (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The point here is not to define what "can" means and replace it with one or another dictionary definition, but why agencies use "can" and "may" and other types cautious wording and further research warnings for aerosol transmission and indicative statements without caution for droplet transmission. Even the "relative role" (ECDC) of two types of transmission or "relative infectiousness of droplets of different sizes" (PHS) not being clear mean that for usual droplets it's pretty much clear, but for aerosols it's not. If you read the short paragraphs of FAQ and Q&A documents together without just picking single sentences you definitely see that this is the case. This is true for all the agencies mentioned above. I contend that this cautiousness should be retained. This does not mean that you have to use "needs further research" in every sentence mentioning aerosol transmission. I suggested above that you can pretty much safely say in the lead that droplet and aerosol transmission both happen (like Canada PHS does) and further explain how first of them is taken granted and second one is currently reported to happen only in particular cases and needs further investigation. I think this would be accurate enough and first clearly claiming that both transmission methods are relevant satisfies the need for caution for aerosols. In the following explanatory text replacing "can" with "is able to" and leaving impression that aerosol transmission a sure thing does not work. I think for the reader making the case more obscure with more references and details does not work either, it has to be clear wording exactly like those of health agencies. By the way, the materials seem to say that aerosol transmission in hospitals with aerosol generating procedures is a real risk that is clearly admitted by agencies and for my mind this should be mentioned first, other ways of aerosol transmission are more like particular events that still need to be generalized and these should be mentioned next and with caution. Does that make sense? Currently the article still tries to mix it up in a way not true to the sources. --Kamma (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * " usual droplets it's pretty much clear, but for aerosols it's not" - this is your opinion, the sources say the relative role / relative importance / relative infectiousness between large droplets and aerosols is not clear. Canada says it in the first sentence "SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, spreads from an infected person to others through respiratory droplets and aerosols created when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, shouts, or talks" - there is no ambiguity there. Above you quoted the WHO stating "airborne transmission is occuring". Even above this they redefine all of the respiratory route as "small liquid particles" "These liquid particles are different sizes, ranging from larger ‘respiratory droplets’ to smaller ‘aerosols’." You keep saying that it isn't clear when all agencies say it is clear. The only thing we do not know which is more relatively important, or whether the distinction is even important - which is why the UK government and the Annals review combine them. The CDC currently stands alone in saying it "appears uncommon" or "sometimes". You need to question your opinion, recognize that you only agree with the CDC (or dismiss airborne almost entirely as a possibility only). You should then question whether that is a personal point of view, because you have blind spots in reading every agency's opinion. Your personal point of view, whether it concurs with the CDC or not, does not inform what is a good balanced article. If there is a differing opinion by 4 out of the 5 agencies listed, then we have to give them their due weight. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Can is not a cautious word. Dogs can walk. Birds can sing. The virus can transmit via large droplets and small aerosols (also known as droplet nuclei, small particles, or airborne transmission). I believe you have a point of view that this is extremely uncommon, which does not reflect the sources. It is not reported to happen only in particular cases, it is unknown which is the primary method, although the CDC contends that is uncommon, in direct conflict to the other sources (when you use the latest ones from each). --08:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.100.63 (talk)
 * Also I believe you misunderstand the word "particularly". What the WHO are saying are that the virus is more likely to spread by the airborne method indoors rather than outdoors, and then they list high risk locations same as the rest of the agencies. They are not commenting on how often it happens, they say that it occurs in some places which are high risk. They say "current evidence suggests" that respiratory droplets is the main method (they do not say that anywhere near as firmly as they used to) and then they state even clearer that "more studies are underway [too see how] airborne transmission is occuring". These are not individual rare cases as the CDC contends, there is mounting case reports many more than the current article suggests, on top of this airborne transmission between ferrets and hamsters, and aerosol/phsyical science. Also it is important to note that each agency's advice is not peer reviewed and subject to change. WHO admit this readily. They are also based on opinion more-so than evidence in the earlier stages of the pandemic. Some researchers believe it is a major method, in Science, contradicting the CDC. This is because the whole dichotomy between airborne particles and droplets is has been upended during this pandemic, causing "an enormous shudder through the infection control society." The newer aerosol science is being proven, and agencies are slowly changing thier point of view, with CDC being the last to change. Wikipedia for now, cannot emphasize one agency more than the other, it must clearly state that is unknown which is more important, (CDC say this with their careful choice of language throughout the pandemic such as thought to, seems to and appears to, prior to stating their opinion). We then list some pertinent opinions such as all of the agencies listed, and some peer reviewed reviews. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For me it would be fine if we followed the exact wording of any of the agencies. Although each of them with different phrasing, all of them deliberately refrain from saying if, how and how much exactly aerosol transmission occurs until further research is done. It's not a question of what "can" or "particularly" means. CDC has latest scientific brief on the issue which explains why aerosol transmission needs further research, earlier WHO brief on the same issue says exactly the same. They do not contradict each other, but CDC brief is later and more like an explainer also for non-medical people. You should carefully read it from beginning up to the very end. By the way, if you read the research papers, the cases of aerosol transmission in these are actually those particular cases mentioned, not that it has been confirmed to be happening in numerous "restaurants, choirs, gyms, nightclubs, offices, and religious venues" all around the world with examples coming in each and every day. Of course there is cutting edge research on this topic, but until it has not been approved at least by most of major health agencies above, we shouldn't try to step ahead of time. Wikipedia shouldn't be fortune telling, even it seems to be for good causes. --Kamma (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are unable to follow the exact wording of the agencies as we would be violating copyright. We follow their intent now. Thats what the WHO says - that it is happening in those venues. You have a point of view that it isn't. The CDC's scientific brief is not peer reviewed and is their opinion, which differs with every other agency. --49.180.100.63 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And yes, the WHO knows that it is happening in restaurants, choirs, gyms, nightclubs, offices, and religious venues all around the world with examples coming in regularly. - they say that virtually verbatim (I believe they say choir practices, places of worship and fitness classes - we can't breach copyright) --49.180.100.63 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Both claims above are incorrect, copyright does not apply to using "can" and "might" as they are single words, copyright also doesn't apply to simple phrases that are not creative work. By the way most the US official materials are fair use/public domain case anyway. Messing up the sources with the excuse of copyright is not a meaningful thing to do. --Kamma (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what you and the CDC's paid editor decide to do now that the article isn't able to have other contributors who dont care to spend lots of time learning Wikipedia's unnecessarily complex rules, but want to correct the misinformation, it should be pointed out that this dispute does not appear to be about whether the virus is airborne or not. It appears to be about the N-95 respirator supply chain, and the fact that airborne precautions for much of the world are impossible. Thats unfortunate.This paternalistic viewpoint is very ethically questonable. Essentially, "We’re not going to say what we really think, because we think you can’t deal with it. I don’t think that’s right.". Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, and be independent of the agencies. Good luck with it all.--49.180.100.63 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this (blaming "paid editors" of health agencies, referring to N95 mask supply chain controversy as an established fact and reason behind agencies' reluctance in admitting aerosol transmission, accusing agencies of paternalism) is already at the level of endorsing conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. Neutral point of view cannot mean independence from acknowledged experts in those agencies summoned to gather and make sense of information from individual reports. These reports by agencies are the best thing we have, unless we are not resorting to our own independent research on Wikipedia. But just one more thing in addition... The controversy about airborne transmission is already a thing of past, it started already in April with articles like that and culminated in October with CDC brief. Now the phrasing in agencies is well unified and should be correctly transmitted into Wikipedia. I will think about it a bit and do my best. --Kamma (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that most editors of wikipedia prefer a varietyof sources - and you only want to use the CDC. --49.181.50.249 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But you might be better off arguing the point on the main COVID-19 pandemic page - as they state in the lead with much higher visibility that it spreads "mainly through the air" hyperlinking airborne transmission - I don't think any of the people editing this page think that. It's unknown - per the WHO, ECDC, UK and Canada. Unless you look at out of date sources. The CDC takes a stab in the dark, without clear evidence, and states that to them it appears uncommon. Those statements are not peer reviewed. --49.181.50.249 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also note these reports are not the only thing we have. We have reviews, which are peer reviewed, unlike the CDC brief. --49.181.50.249 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Airborne transmission the main method, or just as an important method. Now they finally all state what has been bleedingly obvious the whole time https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/how-covid-spreads.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/sars-cov-2-transmission.html https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted please change it the article is now out of date again --202.53.51.164 (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion above but I think it's pretty much settled now, I think that the WHO still push "respiratory droplets" ahead of "aerosols" but the CDC combine them into one statement "small droplets and particles" - essentially the same as the UK combining them into the "respiratory route". I think the article does OK as it stands, but I'll try to update a little at some point. --Almaty (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Transmission of the Virus vs Transmission of the Disease
This article is called "Transmission of COVID-19", but COVID-19 is the disease, so to be correct we have to say "Transmission of SARS-Cov-2" — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this would be correct, however in common speech COVID-19 is the expected (and feared) result of transmission of SARS-Cov-2 and it might be easier or more colloquial to speak that way. People also might be searching these keywords. Maybe either mentioning in the article that transmission of SARS-Cov-2 doesn't always result in COVID-19 or changing almost every instance of COVID-19 to SARS-Cov-2 (and the title) would both be fine. Also using "virus" and "coronavirus" in body text might be of help if using only "SARS-Cov-2" makes it too technical to read. --Kamma (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)