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

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

#111

Post by BoiledCabbage » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

aantix wrote: post #79

danaliv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're arguing for how effective masks are in stopping this virus. A fact that it'd be nice if more people accepted. And is great info that the protests demonstrated so.

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

#112

Post by jennyyang » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

raziel2p wrote: post #75

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 te…

I disagree. You need to treat the virus at the right level of concern otherwise you lose credibility. As we can all see, credibility from the experts needs to be maintained, otherwise no one trusts them anyone. The whole fiasco with masks is because the experts told us things that were obviously wrong at the beginning (ie. masks don't work, masks won't help regular people, etc).

If there is airborne droplet transmission, which I believe is the case otherwise we wouldn't get such infectious spread in bars, etc, then we need to implement better ventilation, social distancing and mask wearing and probably goggles too.

If it was truly "airborne", which it isn't, then the measures would need to be much, much more draconian otherwise it would spread much quicker.

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

#113

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #68

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…

> we would have to implement extremely strict lockdowns... if we assume that the goal is not to flatten the curve but to completely stop the virus in its tracks. Most people and countries don't have this goal. Edit: To those downvoting, I'll just say that my statement is factual, so argue the facts. Long-term, we want a vaccine, yes. In the meantime, most people and countries are simply not willing to do what it take…

> Edit: To those downvoting, I'll just say that my statement is factual, so argue the facts.

I wonder if the downvotes were caused by the phrasing of this statement:

> Most people and countries don't have this goal.

At first I thought you were saying that people didn't actually want to stop the virus in its tracks.

It took me a minute to realize that you're saying people have accepted full-stoppage-in-tracks as being infeasible, and therefore don't consider it an attainable goal.

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

#114

Post by swsieber » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:06 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…

My friend uses "aerosols" for the latter term

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

#115

Post by keenmaster » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #46

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.

Studies have found that a combination of multi-layered cotton and chiffon/silk masks prevents intake of both large and small droplets. Silk/chiffon act magnetically on smaller particles to keep you from breathing them in, while the thick cotton layers stop large droplets. The aggregate effect is similar to N95, but more washable and reusable. It blows my mind that this was discovered a couple months ago and the government still hasn’t funded the mass production of such masks. After I read the study, I bought 2 masks on Etsy.com: a multilayered cotton mask and a silk mask. I wear both when I go out. What’s great is that I don’t just protect others from me, but I also protect myself from others to a large extent (as opposed to just wearing the cotton mask). As for comfort, silk is light and thin, so it doesn’t add any noticeable discomfort on top of the cotton mask.

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/homemade-masks-made-silk-and...

Note: Newer studies have found that even just a thick cotton mask does somewhat protect you (not as much as cotton + silk of course, but they protect others from you quite effectively). You still need to be careful, generally avoid indoor environments with strangers, and socially distance. Not that that disclaimer is super necessary, because other studies have found that masks do not make people behave more recklessly :) If anything, they make you more careful and acutely aware of COVID risks.

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

#116

Post by function_seven » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

ketamine__ wrote: post #99

graeme wrote: post #22

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...

We're constantly filling the rooms we occupy with aerosols from our mouths. How will this help?

Because we’re also constantly filling rooms with the CO2 that we exhale.

The CO2 meter acts as a proxy for how much exhaled “stuff” is lingering about.

So if your CO2 meter shows that the room is at ~400ppm [:’(], rather than 800 or 1000, then you can deduce that the room is well ventilated.

I’m other words, whatever ventilation removed the excess CO2 most likely also removed the aerosols at the same time.

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

#117

Post by newsbinator » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #22

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...

Is there a reliable portable Co2/Pm2.5 logger?

I've heard the accuracy on the Pm2.5 ones at least is way off.

I just moved to a place where I need to keep an eye on Pm2.5 in particular.

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

#118

Post by SkyPuncher » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:08 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…

> If someone with coronavirus sneezes in a room, the large heavy droplets will quickly fall to the ground.

This is the slightly incorrect part with COVID.

Traditionally, this would be an appropriate description for other droplet transmission (like the flu). However, it seems COVID has an above average ability to survive in extremely fine droplets - think mist-sized particles that CAN float in the air for an extended period of time (given the right circumstances).

This nuance is challenging to convey. For healthcare workers, it's important because it likely means standard droplet based precautions are not enough. However, it also seems that full airborne precautions (PAPR's) are overkill. My take is N95's do enough to dehumidify droplets and ultimately break down particles.

For the general public, the nuance is less important. Most don't have access to proper fitting N95 (or better) masks, so they're stuck wearing cloth or surgical masks. They should simply think of COVID as airborne because they're likely not wearing the proper gear.

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

#119

Post by cultofmetatron » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #78

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.

that's pretty disgusting and vulgar. I'm down!! :)

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

#120

Post by jennyyang » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #68

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…

> we would have to implement extremely strict lockdowns... if we assume that the goal is not to flatten the curve but to completely stop the virus in its tracks. Most people and countries don't have this goal. Edit: To those downvoting, I'll just say that my statement is factual, so argue the facts. Long-term, we want a vaccine, yes. In the meantime, most people and countries are simply not willing to do what it take…

If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't, then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected. The levels of people getting infected, and subsequently getting hospitalized would be far worse than the worst scenes we saw in Italy and NYC. Lockdowns absolutely would have been mandatory for months upon months.

Coronavirus is not by itself a tremendously deadly disease. The problem is how infectious it is, and how quickly it can overrun a limited hospital system. Even at a sub-10% hospitalization rate for people younger than 60, we are seeing many hospitals getting full. It being truly airborne would make things worse by many orders of magnitude. The way coronavirus spreads is basically the same mechanism as the flu and the cold, yet the levels of people getting infected are much much worse. Imagine if simply walking through a room could get you infected. The spread would be undeniably worse than anything we had every seen before. Even stores like Costco and all factories would have to shut down. So yes, very strict lockdowns would need to be in place.

Thank goodness it's not.