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

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

#41

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

jennyyang wrote: post #32

After this pandemic, doctors and scientists are going to have to come up with more media-friendly terms from now on. The problem is that "airborne droplets" and "airborne" sound too similar and it's very hard for regular people to understand what that means. "Airborne droplets" means that viruses need saliva to transmit between people. "Airborne" means that the virus only needs dust particles to transmit to other peo…

The article addresses this midway through. The problem is that even the experts haven't really agreed on terminology. They need to do that first before they can hope to inform the public. :)

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

#42

Post by sigstoat » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

i wish target and home depot would stop making us wait in line while they futz about wiping things down. it's been clear that time spent in line with other people is a bigger concern than the possibility that something is lingering on the barcode scanner and will be transferred onto my box of nails, or bananas.

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

#43

Post by obelos » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #27

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?

I think this is it. Everyone's painting the roses red because spritzing some sanitizer on every surface costs a minuscule fraction of the massive revamping of indoor climate that's actually required to reduce risk.

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

#44

Post by misanthropian00 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #37

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.

Yeah, this is the fundamental failure of this administration. Months ago we could have designed a high quality and visually unique mask with less than N95 efficiency but with a reasonable safety and comfort level. We should already have been manufacturing and distributing them at cost. They should be mandatory in all enclosed spaces and we could have prevented a lot of the spike in spread we are seeing now and are li…

There is no reason to design a worse mask than N95. They could have just manufactured more N95 masks and rationed them to prevent hoarding and speculating. Every household could get an N95 mask ration card to buy masks and decon tools like UV-C lights and sparky ozone generators.

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

#45

Post by ghaff » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #27

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?

>Maybe people felt like there was less they could do?

Probably mostly that plus a lot of the attention focused on transmission by touch early on. The last event I went to in March there was no handshaking, cleaning of surfaces, etc. But no masks or distancing.

But, yeah, taking additional care to clean surfaces is pretty easy and cheap. Completely redoing ventilation is going to be pretty much impossible in a lot of situations.

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

#46

Post by DanBC » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

CogentHedgehog wrote: post #31

Short-distance aerosol transmission changes things a bit: * Social distancing isn't enough to guarantee safety in indoors spaces: bad news for bars, clubs, gyms, concerts, and restaurants * Outdoors spaces are probably safer than we previously thought * Indoor mask-wearing becomes CRITICAL in public spaces * Indoor ventilation becomes extra important, using fresh air from outside or filtered/UV-sanitized air * Indoor…

> Indoor mask-wearing becomes CRITICAL in public spaces

Mask wearing provides minimal benefits against droplet transmission, but they do nothing at all for small droplet aerosol transmission.

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

#47

Post by squeaky-clean » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #33

R0b0t1 wrote: post #24

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…

Why wasn't there a large spike with the recent protests in the participating demographic? https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-d... The chants "no justice, no peace"? "I can't breath"? Those were clear chants. Everyone breathing on each other while chanting. Unencumbered by a mask.

> Unencumbered by a mask.

Got a source on this? From the protests I've been attending, I'd say mask usage is easily at 99% of attendees. Everyone pictured in your linked article also has a mask, at least 10% have full masks and face shields.

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

#48

Post by machello13 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #33

R0b0t1 wrote: post #24

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…

Why wasn't there a large spike with the recent protests in the participating demographic? https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-d... The chants "no justice, no peace"? "I can't breath"? Those were clear chants. Everyone breathing on each other while chanting. Unencumbered by a mask.

That's only a single paper, hardly conclusive. But also:

> Unencumbered by a mask.

The picture at the beginning of the article you linked shows every protester wearing a mask.

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

#49

Post by ColanR » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #24

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…

I have several (medical) doctors in my family. They were pretty clear from the beginning that what the WHO was saying was BS. They pretty much agreed with what you're relating; I don't think it's doctors in general who are ignorant of how a virus gets transmitted.

I completely agree with your first point; but what we need to seriously question is the cherry-picking of sources that were paraded in front of us by the media.

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

#50

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #33

R0b0t1 wrote: post #24

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…

Why wasn't there a large spike with the recent protests in the participating demographic? https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/07/01/research-d... The chants "no justice, no peace"? "I can't breath"? Those were clear chants. Everyone breathing on each other while chanting. Unencumbered by a mask.

Note that the findings don't say "those who went to the protests did not catch the virus or transmit it to others". They just say there wasn't an overall spike after the protests.

The fourth bullet point addresses this directly:

"The study’s lead author, Dhaval Dave of Bentley University, said, “In many cities, the protests actually seemed to lead to a net increase in social distancing, as more people who did not protest decided to stay off the streets.”"