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

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

#121

Post by derg » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #47

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. 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.

hell at the ones I went to there were roving groups of people handing out masks and gloves (more masks than gloves and the masks came directly from the box), hand sanitizer, and water.

it was a sight to see honestly and very heartening bit of community and mutual aid.

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

#122

Post by droopyEyelids » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:10 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 WHOLE POINT of the article is to educate you about the difference between droplets (ballistic) and aerosols (behave like a gas).

It doesn't look like you, or the people replying to you read the article. And thats a shame, because you're exactly the type of person who the author is trying to educate.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:12 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…

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by newsbinator » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

newen wrote: post #93

misanthropian00 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's very difficult to wear an N95; it's really constrictive and uncomformtable. You can't expect civilians to wear N95 masks all the time and you need to weigh the comfort of a mask against its effectiveness.

People say this, but I don't understand it. I regularly wear N95s for hours on end. It's not fun to do while sweating, sure. But it's not much more difficult than wearing a surgical mask, is it?

Sure the straps are tight and the nose pinches. But that's little discomfort compared to getting sick.

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

#125

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

I am still shocked: months after research has shown that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne stable in aerosol form for over 3 hours, we still aren’t telling the public that room air purifiers are a ‘good thing’ (for making indoor air like outdoor air - in regards to virion density per cubic air volume)

The filter technology is essentially the same as in the N95, orders of magnitude more effective than cloth masks.

Put these indoors, multiple per classroom/working space to help the air refresh in sub 5 minute intervals.

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

#126

Post by mr__y » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

doliveira wrote: post #14

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.

I was under the impression that the aerosol route was just common knowledge, but last week my state government (in Brazil) was doing deep cleaning in schools that have been closed for like 100 days. Yeah, good thing you're deep cleaning probably the last place on earth with no coronavirus! Now we'll only have problems if people want to breath in there... Such a stupid security theater.

Somewhat ironically, people doing that cleaning might spread coronavirus into those places if they happen to be asymptomatic carriers

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

#127

Post by droopyEyelids » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #107

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…

Is a better distinction Dry Airborne vs Wet Airborne? There is still particle size to consider I guess.

Why don't you read the article? The distinction is between aerosols and droplets, in the case of corona virus, and by asking this question it looks like you're chasing the wild goose that OP brought into this thread.

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

#128

Post by R0b0t1 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #110

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…

All professionals and experts should be held accountable for their actions: doctors are no exception. The issue with "needing to be held accountable" is that you're calling doctors a monolithic group and implying that they aren't already heavily screened and scrutinized. Doctors are, and should be, some of the most elite minds and highly respected scientists/caregivers. Like any group, they have inter-group controver…

Apply that to cops and people would say you're off your rocker. Self-policing doesn't seem to work. We need something more.

Practically there is no way to hold a doctor accountable. There's various laws to limit liability and in most courts in the US you'll need another doctor to testify against your doctor. As the number of doctors is low they tend to know each other at least in passing, and it's hard to actually enforce professional standards.

What matters the most are practicing doctors, not doctors involved in research. I forget what the numbers are, but there are still more GPs and specialist than there are researching practitioners.

If you venture far outside a big city the quality of healthcare experiences a precipitous drop. It's terrifying. Even within a big city like New York, we found out that the ER/ICU professionals were killing people with ventilators! Why didn't they just supply oxygen instead, like they seem to be doing now?

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

#129

Post by aantix » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:15 PM UTC

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #111

aantix wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The protestors are in the age demographic that are by far least affected by the virus.

“We estimate that susceptibility to infection in individuals under 20 years of age is approximately half that of adults aged over 20 years, and that clinical symptoms manifest in 21% (95% credible interval: 12–31%) of infections in 10- to 19-year-olds”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Ag...

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

#130

Post by SkyPuncher » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:16 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…

> It was clear from the very beginning that transmission was airborne.

To me the only thing that was clear was the definition of airborne is not standard.

By strict definition, COVID is not airborne since it seems to require a host material (e.g. water droplet). This is in contrast to measles which individual virus particles can survive without a host material. Practically speaking though, COVID seems to be able to survive well in such small droplets that it acts like an airborne disease.

At a public health, COVID might as well be treated as airborne. Within acute care settings, this is a critical difference is being used as justification that a _properly_ fitted N95 and eye covering is sufficient to care for COVID patients. If COVID was truly airborne, all patient care should require airborne-level PPE (like PAPRs).