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

71–80 of 292 posts

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

#71

Post by jimktrains2 »

ColanR wrote: post #60
aantix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The plural of anecdote is not data. There were obviously a mix of behaviors, and which was predominant and where is a crucial factor to control in any analysis.

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

#72

Post by squeaky-clean »

ColanR wrote: post #60
aantix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You can't simply search for "BLM Protest". The 2020 protests are not the first BLM protests, these are just the first BLM protests that are getting global attention.

On the first row of images that appear for me, when following the sourced article, they are from the years:

2015, 2016, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 (everyone in this picture has masks)

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

#73

Post by ColanR »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #72
ColanR wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You can't simply search for "BLM Protest". The 2020 protests are not the first BLM protests, these are just the first BLM protests that are getting global attention. On the first row of images that appear for me, when following the sourced article, they are from the years: 2015, 2016, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020 (everyone in this picture has masks)

Yeah, I noticed and fixed the search.

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

#74

Post by James_Henry »

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.

The paper the Forbes article references doesn't seem to refute the idea that there wasn't a spike in "the participating demographic". They mostly focused on the increase in social distancing among those not participating in the protests.

That aside, the Atlantic article talks about outside air diluting the virus. The Forbes article you linked also talks about this.

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

#75

Post by raziel2p »

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…

I don't agree with your conclusion. Airborne is airborne regardless of whether it's 5 minutes or 12 hours. The point of the word is to tell people that you can become infected without being in direct physical contact with them. Trying to come up with words for different durations of airborne is only going to make it more confusing, even if it becomes less ambiguous to the people who know the difference between the terms.

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

#76

Post by nabla9 »

Just look at the list of people who signed the letter.

They are experts in their field but they don't have the expertise to consider the whole picture.

It's possible, that there is some airborne transmission besides droplets, but there is no evidence that it's significant transmission route. To get infected you need big enough dose of virus at once. Just some dry floating particles in the air is not enough.

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

#77

Post by thinkingemote »

in the UK the LNER train company highlights ventilation amongst other things, but the ventilation bit I found suprising when I encountered it.

https://www.lner.co.uk/travel-information/lets-travel-togeth...

" Our onboard ventilation systems are providing a continuing supply of fresh air which is cycled every 6 minutes limiting droplet transmission between passengers." With the graphics implying that ventilation is spatially limited.

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

#78

Post by PopeDotNinja »

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…

I propose calling airborne droplets “germ infested mouth farts”. It’d definitely get the 4 year olds on board.

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

#79

Post by aantix »

danaliv wrote: post #63
aantix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. That hasn’t been my experience. Every action I’ve attended has had clear messaging leading up to it about masks and social distancing, and attendees have adhered to guidelines.

This is adhering to the social distancing guidelines? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/george-floyd-protest...

The crowds are tight and packed.

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

#80

Post by beamatronic »

unclesaamm wrote: post #18
beamatronic wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article links to the study. The issue was more than certain people sat downwind of others indoors, rather than where the air came from. Let me know if you read a different conclusion from it.

Now I’m really curious. How does one exchange indoor air safely?
Post reply on HN