Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
theatlantic.com
Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
1–10 of 292 posts
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#2Wow, what a good article. Finally an article in a well respected publication that goes over the science of the Covid19 transmission, and appears to be non-partisan as well (what a tragedy that the approach to combat the disease has become a partisan issue). I really hope this article will, dare I say, "become viral". If it does, this article by itself could help save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#3Wow, what a good article. Finally an article in a well respected publication that goes over the science of the Covid19 transmission, and appears to be non-partisan as well (what a tragedy that the approach to combat the disease has become a partisan issue). I really hope this article will, dare I say, "become viral". If it does, this article by itself could help save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
But it won't. The reason things became "partisan" is precisely because things like the article are useless and ineffective. You're assuming a shared reality that doesn't exist.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#4My company took steps to address this months ago. The re-circulation rate was set to zero so all air is fresh make up air from outside. This has significantly increased our cooling bill since it's summer, but it was something that we felt important even though there hasn't been much science to back it up. We also have a UV system hooked up to our system, but this has been installed for the last 2-3 years now.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#5Wow, what a good article. Finally an article in a well respected publication that goes over the science of the Covid19 transmission, and appears to be non-partisan as well (what a tragedy that the approach to combat the disease has become a partisan issue). I really hope this article will, dare I say, "become viral". If it does, this article by itself could help save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
But it won't. The reason things became "partisan" is precisely because things like the article are useless and ineffective. You're assuming a shared reality that doesn't exist.
You could be a little more gracious, and write a bit about the counterargument in your head, rather than framing your opinion as a dismissive argument right away.
Edit: There may be some confusion: When you say, "things like the article are useless and ineffective", are you saying it's useless in reducing infection, or useless in communicating the message of how to reduce infection?
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#6My company took steps to address this months ago. The re-circulation rate was set to zero so all air is fresh make up air from outside. This has significantly increased our cooling bill since it's summer, but it was something that we felt important even though there hasn't been much science to back it up. We also have a UV system hooked up to our system, but this has been installed for the last 2-3 years now.
I wonder if air-to-air heat exchangers could address that cost issue.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#7One key result of this evidence is that we should take all the money going into deep cleaning, and spend it on higher quality masks for everyone. Also perhaps makeshift ventilation systems (being careful not to replicate that Hong Kong restaurant) or outdoor tents where feasible.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#8Wow, what a good article. Finally an article in a well respected publication that goes over the science of the Covid19 transmission, and appears to be non-partisan as well (what a tragedy that the approach to combat the disease has become a partisan issue). I really hope this article will, dare I say, "become viral". If it does, this article by itself could help save tens or hundreds of thousands of lives.
But it won't. The reason things became "partisan" is precisely because things like the article are useless and ineffective. You're assuming a shared reality that doesn't exist.
I can only assume you're being downvoted because you've confused the chicken and the egg.
Partisan issues don't exist because articles like this are useless and ineffective. Partisan stances on this sort of thing is what makes people believe articles like this are useless. You have it backwards.
I would absolutely agree, though, that there is no such thing as a cultural 'shared reality' anymore. That is the base of the problem. There are very, very few shared experiences, and a section of the population is not, seemingly, even interested in trying to understand someone else's viewpoint.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#9One key result of this evidence is that we should take all the money going into deep cleaning, and spend it on higher quality masks for everyone. Also perhaps makeshift ventilation systems (being careful not to replicate that Hong Kong restaurant) or outdoor tents where feasible.
What was the restaurant doing wrong? Was it recirculating indoor air? Or was it actually exchanging the air? Replacing indoor air with fresh air from outside.
Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
#10My company took steps to address this months ago. The re-circulation rate was set to zero so all air is fresh make up air from outside. This has significantly increased our cooling bill since it's summer, but it was something that we felt important even though there hasn't been much science to back it up. We also have a UV system hooked up to our system, but this has been installed for the last 2-3 years now.
I wonder if air-to-air heat exchangers could address that cost issue.
Surely all industrial / professional HVAC get installed with HRV and the loss here is going from the "100% efficient" recirc to HRV, no?