Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#21

Post by playingchanges » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #8

martythemaniak wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But the whole point of the chicken and the egg problem is that it is not apparent which came first.

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#22

Post by graeme » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

If anyone is in an indoor environment and wants to gauge risk, a portable co2 meter can be had for about $100-$150. Cod2 is a good proxy for indoor pollutants/air exchange, and I’m assuming it is a good proxy for aerosols too.

I use one of these, you can use a portable battery to power it.

https://www.amazon.com/AutoPilot-APCEMDL-Desktop-Data-Storag...

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#23

Post by pfdietz » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

wavepruner wrote: post #11

pfdietz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if air-to-air heat exchangers could address that cost issue.

Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_recovery_ventilation

Yes. I was wondering if the wheel-based ones had some means of killing pathogens on the wheel, rather than transfering them back to the incoming air stream.

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#24

Post by R0b0t1 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

This is a good article.

I work at a biotech company that studies virus transmission and helps others study it. It was clear from the very beginning that transmission was airborne. Why would it not be? That the WHO and some doctors were assuming it was not seriously damages their credibility as healthcare professionals.

Current events should lead people to seriously question deference given to doctors. They need to be held accountable for their actions and must be made to listen to professionals in other fields.

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#25

Post by bluGill » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #19

One problem is that no one seems to know that AC systems recirculate air. I literally can't get people to believe me when I tell them this. When buying a window unit recently, some models had the ability to incorporate fresh outside air but the cheaper ones didn't. My home is leaky enough that I worry more about keeping outside air out rather than in, though.

The ones that bring in outside air (that I have seen) just let a little outside air in. Most of the air is still recirculated, but there is a tiny hole that opens to let some air in.

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#26

Post by sukilot » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #19

One problem is that no one seems to know that AC systems recirculate air. I literally can't get people to believe me when I tell them this. When buying a window unit recently, some models had the ability to incorporate fresh outside air but the cheaper ones didn't. My home is leaky enough that I worry more about keeping outside air out rather than in, though.

Do people not use the recirc switch in their car?

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#27

Post by kenjackson » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

There is a weird disconnect. Everyone seems to acknowledge the most likely way to transmit COVID is via droplets when indoor. Yet, there is little discussion about ventilation. Maybe people felt like there was less they could do?

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#28

Post by sukilot » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

ianpenney wrote: post #16

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/ataglance/855/ From April, Japan has been on top of this for a little while. Impressive science imho.

And yet Japanese government declared victory and campaigned against protective measures leading to a massive re-ourbreak, "for the economy"

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#29

Post by stx » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #19

One problem is that no one seems to know that AC systems recirculate air. I literally can't get people to believe me when I tell them this. When buying a window unit recently, some models had the ability to incorporate fresh outside air but the cheaper ones didn't. My home is leaky enough that I worry more about keeping outside air out rather than in, though.

Unless someone who has it is inside your home I don't think you need to worry about the air recirculating. I agree though its amazing that people don't understand how this works.

Re: Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

#30

Post by felbane » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

beamatronic wrote: post #9

unclesaamm wrote: post #7

One 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.

As I understand it, the restaurant had an air conditioner in front of a table, and an infected but asymptomatic person was breathing into the airstream which was then circulated to infect anyone downwind of the a/c.