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

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

#191

Post by ogre_codes » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #187

yellow_postit wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expect we will see a repeat of the bungled rush for air purifiers as we did with ventilators.

Here would could at least prioritize schools? Ventilators was only bungled because it turned out to be the wrong therapy... air purifiers is a win win win

> Here would could at least prioritize schools?

Or just mandate them in schools and let the rest of the population figure it out. Though even this would be fraught, there aren't enough air purifiers on store shelves to adequately provide for public schools.

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

#192

Post by briandear » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #153

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…

The “appeal to authority” is also used to sell toothbrushes. I agree that it’s foolish to trust an article or “fact” because 9 out of 10 doctors agree. I am very interested in why that 10th doctor didn’t agree..

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

#193

Post by sgt101 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #176

sgt101 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution here : don't lick the floor.

Understood but think pets and of children who could later carry it to you.

I don't want to minimize Covid - of course you must protect yourself as you see fit.

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

#194

Post by jennyyang » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:33 PM UTC

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #188

jennyyang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't why do you say this? The article is saying otherwise, quite literally "The coronavirus reproduces in our upper and lower respiratory tracts, and is emitted when we breathe, talk, sing, cough, or sneeze" > then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected You're presuming it has to be empty. If you walked through a full room without touching anyone or a…

Yes you are misunderstanding me.

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

#195

Post by jdlyga » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:35 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…

This is why science communicators are extremely important. Technical words are great for trained professionals who understand the context. But too many people, myself included, repeat these words only partially understanding what they're intended to mean.

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

#196

Post by rtx » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #188

jennyyang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't why do you say this? The article is saying otherwise, quite literally "The coronavirus reproduces in our upper and lower respiratory tracts, and is emitted when we breathe, talk, sing, cough, or sneeze" > then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected You're presuming it has to be empty. If you walked through a full room without touching anyone or a…

That's where the six feet distance part comes in.

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

#197

Post by mamon » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:38 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.

>> But that's little discomfort compared to getting sick

Depends on how afraid you are of getting sick. Most people that get infected do not develop any symptoms, and of those who do 95% wouldn't be able to tell them aparat from the normal flu. The only real risk group are people over 70, and while those might actually be afraid, the rest of the society is simply getting more and more pissed off with all those restrictions imposed on us.

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

#198

Post by coryrc » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #175

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…

> "...SARS-CoV-2 is airborne stable in aerosol form for over 3 hours..." see, this is the kind of insinuation that does none of us any good. it's like doing PCR to connote live virus particles live for 17 days on surfaces (spoiler: they don't). with that said, i'm down for air purifiers in living spaces† for a whole host of good health reasons, but most commercial spaces and public buildings (like schools) already ha…

If you are in the USA, I don't believe your claim that most commercial or schools have HEPA in their air filtration system, and know it isn't true for new residential in the PNW.

The school I attended as a child didn't have any filtration at all, for example.

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

#199

Post by driverdan » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

function_seven wrote: post #116

ketamine__ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Considering atmospheric CO2 levels are around 400ppm you're not going to keep it that low indoors unless it's full of open windows.

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

#200

Post by prox » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #188

jennyyang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't why do you say this? The article is saying otherwise, quite literally "The coronavirus reproduces in our upper and lower respiratory tracts, and is emitted when we breathe, talk, sing, cough, or sneeze" > then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected You're presuming it has to be empty. If you walked through a full room without touching anyone or a…

It’s because it seems to be mostly ballistic droplets, except for a (small?) percentage were it is not. This is also stated in text for measles (that spreads throughout a house) which Corona seems to not do.