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

Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 292 posts

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

#51

Post by sigstoat »

ColanR wrote: post #39

We probably aren't hearing about it because it's something we have less ability to protect against. I remember a popular comment here a while back mentioning that epidemeologists' job is partly public relations, trying to figure out what they can tell the general public that will minimize the viral spread. Making sure everyone wears masks will, at the scale of the general population, reduce the infection rate by some…

> Talking about airborne transmission, though? The kind of masks that can protect against that are hard to come by. Not to mention that the virus could enter via the fluid of the eyes (not trying to add conspiracy here, just trying to make a point about the difficult reality of preventing infection [0]). Bio-rated goggles and N95+ rated masks are more than we can expect from a public that's making face masks out of bandannas.

plenty of evidence that even a little bit of protective gear helps. it isn't a matter of hazmat-suit-or-GTFO.

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

#52

Post by scythe »

One issue is that we seem to have an all-or-nothing view of infection. People think that either a virus gets in your nose and you get sick, or it doesn't and you're fine. This extends to thinking that either there is a risk or there isn't, which motivates incorrect anti-mask arguments.

In reality, the probability of infection varies continuously with the degree of exposure, and the minimal infective dose might be prevented even if not all viral particles can be blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_infective_dose

With airborne transmission, it is practically impossible to reduce the transmission probability to zero in many situations, and we have overlooked the value of finite improvements. However, the circumstantial evidence suggests that, since super-spreader events are correlated with apparently high airborne concentrations of viral particles, that reducing the duration and intensity of exposure may yield significant benefits even if inhaled air cannot be made completely free of virions.

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

#53

Post by ColanR »

sigstoat wrote: post #51
ColanR wrote: post #39

We probably aren't hearing about it because it's something we have less ability to protect against. I remember a popular comment here a while back mentioning that epidemeologists' job is partly public relations, trying to figure out what they can tell the general public that will minimize the viral spread. Making sure everyone wears masks will, at the scale of the general population, reduce the infection rate by some…

> Talking about airborne transmission, though? The kind of masks that can protect against that are hard to come by. Not to mention that the virus could enter via the fluid of the eyes (not trying to add conspiracy here, just trying to make a point about the difficult reality of preventing infection [0]). Bio-rated goggles and N95+ rated masks are more than we can expect from a public that's making face masks out of b…

> Making sure everyone wears masks will, at the scale of the general population, reduce the infection rate by some noticable percent.

I said that.

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

#54

Post by obelos »

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.

They're in the extremely well ventilated outdoors, and at least at the protests I was at there were very few people not wearing masks. Also, people in these gatherings tend to mill about, which means any contact with a stream of virus-infused exhalations will be brief and less likely to introduce a viable quantity into you.

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

#55

Post by mc32 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #41
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. :)

So why talk about HVAC systems ?

Context:

>” by 10 bottles of hand sanitizer without a word on ventilation—whether it was opening windows, employing upgraded filters in its HVAC systems, or using portable HEPA filters. It seems baffling that despite mounting evidence of its importance, we are stuck practicing hygiene theater...”

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

#56

Post by MiguelVieira »

When I look at this heat map of recent cases per capita in the US

https://globalepidemics.org/key-metrics-for-covid-suppressio...

the first thing I see is hot spots all across the southeast and desert southwest. These places have widely varying governments and cultures, but the one thing they do have in common right now is: they're hot.

My suspicion is that many of the outbreaks we've seen recently are caused by people from different households congregating indoors in buildings with air conditioning and closed windows. The article mentions this, but I rarely here it talked about on the news:

"The importance of aerosols may even help explain why the disease is now exploding in the southern United States, where people often go into air-conditioned spaces to avoid the sweltering heat."

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

#57

Post by ehnto »

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?

Gyms and restaurants have had their air conditioning off in Aus. Israel turned off their bus air conditioning.

This isn't breaking news but I suspect it would be a new angle to the media rhetoric for a few countries and media outlets.

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

#58

Post by addHocker »

sukilot wrote: post #28
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"

Those who pay, get to set the agenda. And its hard to convince a CEO who thinks money can move heaven and earth, that his influence should be limited by biology and physics.

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

#59

Post by js2 »

A couple other articles I've read in the last few days also cover this topic:

Yes, the Coronavirus Is in the Air

> Transmission through aerosols matters — and probably a lot more than we’ve been able to prove yet.

...

> I am a civil and environmental engineer who studies how viruses and bacteria spread through the air — as well as one of the 239 scientists who signed an open letter in late June pressing the W.H.O. to consider the risk of airborne transmission more seriously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/opinion/coronavirus-aeros...

Aboard the Diamond Princess, a Case Study in Aerosol Transmission

> A computer model of the cruise-ship outbreak found that the virus spread most readily in microscopic droplets light enough to linger in the air.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/health/diamond-princess-c...

And here's an article from two weeks ago that goes into some depth on superspreading events:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/18/coronavirus...

> He believes ventilation may also be to blame for a case involving a young man from China’s Hunan province, who sat in the back of a bus but ended up infecting seven others in various areas of the vehicle and then two more on a second minibus he hopped onto next. Li interviewed the patient, driver, passengers and reviewed video footage and found it odd that few of those who became infected were nearby. In fact, at least one passenger who fell ill was as far away as possible at the front of the bus — 31 feet away — from the coronavirus-positive man. […] In the case of the Hunan man who transmitted the virus while riding two buses, Li said that “amazingly” after that four-hour window of infectivity, he is not known to have infected anyone else at all.

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

#60

Post by ColanR »

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.

To the other folks replying: I looked up the protests on ddg images, and about half of the protesters in those photos were wearing masks.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=blm+protest+2020&iar=images&iax=im...

Post reply on HN