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

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

#151

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #125

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 indo…

Added benefit: post-covid pandemic, improved indoor air quality with all the included benefits!

Air quality associated with:

Alzheimers: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-alzheimer...

Cancers, plural: https://www.aacr.org/patients-caregivers/progress-against-ca...

Sperm Quality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443398/#sec995...

Female Fertility: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207560-exposure-to-air...

Autism: https://www.sciencealert.com/particulate-matter-in-air-pollu...

Bipolar/Depression: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/air-p...

side note: please make the ICE>Electric transition happen faster... sigh

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

#152

Post by fuckyah » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

SkyPuncher wrote: post #118

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…

for most people <70 sars-cov-2 is not more dangerous than the flu. so mask wearing is not necessary. we'll get faster to herd immunity that way...

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

#153

Post by prof-dr-ir » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

I would like to make a small point about the letter signed by "hundreds of scientists around the world".

According to the NY Times there were in fact 239 signatories, which coincidentally is almost the same number as the "253 ... scientists from 44 nations" warning of the dangers of electromagnetic radiation (!) that can be found at https://emfscientist.org/ . If you trust one, do you trust the other also?

Regardless of the merits of the rest of the article, I would caution against trusting a claim just because two hundred odd scientists from all sorts of disciplines were willing to sign an open letter. Science is not a democracy.

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

#154

Post by newen » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

newsbinator wrote: post #124

newen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of people already complain about wearing the regular masks and how uncomfortable it is, especially in summer. I'm sure a lot of people don't wear masks already or take it off regularly because it's so uncomfortable. I think ubiquitous use of N95s would just make that problem worse.

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

#155

Post by hashtagjohnt » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #138

SkyPuncher wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

>By strict definition, COVID is not airborne since it seems to require a host material (e.g. water droplet). You are wrong. Read: 1. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmissi... . 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5_reference.... . Aerosol transmission is the main vector. Consider posing your statement in the reverse: SARS-CoV-2 does not disperse in droplets, and/or is not infectio…

In the first article you posted it reads:

> To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated; much more research is needed given the possible implications of such route of transmission.

That seems to be in direct opposition to your statement, correct? Or am I missing something.

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

#156

Post by frenchy » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

R0b0t1 wrote: post #138

SkyPuncher wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

>By strict definition, COVID is not airborne since it seems to require a host material (e.g. water droplet). You are wrong. Read: 1. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmissi... . 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5_reference.... . Aerosol transmission is the main vector. Consider posing your statement in the reverse: SARS-CoV-2 does not disperse in droplets, and/or is not infectio…

So I read those, and at least according to the WHO document, it seems to be the case that while viral RNA is detectable in a non-aersolized state in the air, they haven't been able to find any cases of this causing infection (See section labelled "Airborne transmission").

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

#157

Post by prutschman » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

SkyPuncher wrote: post #118

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…

I don't see what was incorrect about the parent.

It goes on to say "However, there are microdroplets which stay in the air for 30+ minutes depending on the air currents."

It sounds like you're both in agreement that large droplets fall quickly to the ground, and that with COIVD the longer-lasting micro-droplets are a relevant factor.

Am I missing a subtlety?

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

#158

Post by scubbo » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #150

jtbayly wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I'll just say that my statement is factual > assume > goal An assumption is not a fact. A goal isn't a fact either. While total elimination is probably impossible, plenty of places have managed almost complete suppression to the point where it's more like E. Coli; occasional outbreaks, but action taken to contain it. "flatten the curve" is now associated with "herd immunity" and other discredited ideas.

I think you may have responded a little hastily and misunderstood the comment.

---

> An assumption is not a fact.

Correct, and the person you were replying to never implied that it was. I'll rewrite the comment more explicitly for you, instead of using the implied context of the quotation:

> If the goal was not to flatten the curve but to completely stop the virus in its tracks, we would have to implement extremely strict lockdowns. Most people and countries don't have this goal [to completely stop the virus]

---

> A goal isn't a fact either

"Entity X has goal Y" is, indeed, a fact. (EDIT: Or, rather, a statement - which may or not be factual) The person you were replying to claims "Most people and countries do not have the goal to completely stop the virus" as a fact. Neither you, nor they, have provided evidence for or against the factuality of this statement.

---

Can you elaborate on what, exactly, is discredited about "flattening the curve" - shorthand for "reducing the rate-of-increase of new cases, so that the throughput of new cases is within the carrying capacity of the country-in-question's medical infrastructure"?

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

#159

Post by vladTheInhaler » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:55 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #61

mc32 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...”

Sorry, what do you mean?

I suspect the parent post meant "why not", as in "improving HVAC would be more effective than the omnipresent hand sanitizer, so why aren't we talking about that?"

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

#160

Post by scubbo » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #113

jtbayly wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

No, I think that's precisely what they were saying. I don't think that this is unattainable - I think it would have a greater economic cost, particularly to the wealthy, than many countries are willing to bear. It's not unattainable - it would cost them more than those lives are perceived as being worth. Big conceptual difference.