Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

nerdist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#51

Post by throwanem »

zzzcpan wrote: post #37
robocat wrote: post #2

I am hoping we have good science behind the “1.5 metre” distance rule... Does anyone have links to videos that show how breath swirls around, especially in outdoor areas? I guess I could get some pollen and try and model it myself!

This is the only study I know on aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.08.982637v1.... (it doesn't support such simplistic advice of 1.5 meters distance, that advice seems pretty bad and dangerous)

As noted in the bright yellow box at the top of the page, this is an unreviewed, and as you note unreplicated, preprint. Don't place too much weight on it.

Also note that it describes aerosol concentrations as "undetectable" in the patient-use areas where samples were collected.

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#52

Post by Mountain_Skies »

mc32 wrote: post #4

I prefer the term Physical Avoidance. but yeah, I think it’s a better yet than social distancing although “social distancing” has better recognition because “social” is more “au currant” as a term.

It's also a novel term which likely gained it some extra needed attention though obviously not enough judging by the amount of non compliance.

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#53

Post by throwanem »

wenc wrote: post #17

I wonder: who came up with the term "social distancing"? The wikipedia [1] article doesn't say. Was it widely used prior to this? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_distancing

I don't know, but I suspect its popularity of late might have something to do with its use in the 2011 movie Contagion, which has seen much reference in recent days.

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#54

Post by comicjk »

What about a more visual description, like "safety circle"?

When I was a Boy Scout learning to use an axe, they called the danger zone within reach of the axe the "blood circle". A bit overwrought, but it certainly stuck in my mind. I think they say "safety circle" now.

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#57

Post by badfrog »

fyp wrote: post #46

In china, a lot the spread isn't from stranger to stranger but family to family: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-28/coronavir... https://youtu.be/e3gCbkeARbY?t=37 How do you do physical distancing within your home? Eat meals alone? Don't share cups/plates? Wear gloves for doorknobs? I feel like there's currently no solution for this.

> How do you do physical distancing within your home? Eat meals alone? Don't share cups/plates? Wear gloves for doorknobs? I feel like there's currently no solution for this.

I don't think you really need to. Say the average household size is 3. If everybody locks down just within their household, the maximum spread of infection is 3x the current level. If that's done early enough, things will be pretty much fine in terms of hospital capacity, etc. Though if somebody in your household is especially at risk, they may want to stay in a separate room for a few days until it's clear that everybody else is safe.

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#58

Post by mrosett »

bonyt wrote: post #40
nabla9 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here: 1) Exposure to influenza virus aerosols during routine patient care. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/207/7/1037/2192312 >HCPs within 1.829 m of patients with influenza could be exposed to infectious doses of influenza virus, primarily in small-particle aerosols. 2) Short-range airborne transmission of expiratory droplets between two people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27287598 >The threshold distan…

1.829m sounds like it was converted from exactly 6 feet.

No it’s 6.0006 feet. Obviously.

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#59

Post by badfrog »

zzzcpan wrote: post #37
robocat wrote: post #2

I am hoping we have good science behind the “1.5 metre” distance rule... Does anyone have links to videos that show how breath swirls around, especially in outdoor areas? I guess I could get some pollen and try and model it myself!

This is the only study I know on aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.08.982637v1.... (it doesn't support such simplistic advice of 1.5 meters distance, that advice seems pretty bad and dangerous)

Isn't this virus transmitted via droplets, not aerosols?

Re: WHO Changes 'Social Distancing' to 'Physical Distancing'

#60

Post by badfrog »

nabla9 wrote: post #39
robocat wrote: post #2

I am hoping we have good science behind the “1.5 metre” distance rule... Does anyone have links to videos that show how breath swirls around, especially in outdoor areas? I guess I could get some pollen and try and model it myself!

Here: 1) Exposure to influenza virus aerosols during routine patient care. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/207/7/1037/2192312 >HCPs within 1.829 m of patients with influenza could be exposed to infectious doses of influenza virus, primarily in small-particle aerosols. 2) Short-range airborne transmission of expiratory droplets between two people. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27287598 >The threshold distan…

Do we have any idea how this changes outdoors? I could see it being worse because the wind spreads virus farther or better because it gets diluted quicker.
Post reply on HN