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

281–290 of 292 posts

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

#281

Post by highmastdon »

aantix wrote: post #258
highmastdon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a key part is also the dose in which you get infected that leads to illness. When you're in the open air, breathing and chanting, the dose of the virus is so low, that the immune system can easily defend against it. Also, the virus doesn't kill most people, the human immune (over)reaction does. This is my laymen's way of describing a (deadly) course of the virus and disease. 1.1. person breaths in micropartic…

Regarding [5], where is the disagreement on the effectiveness of HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin? Overwhelmingly the news has been negative. The above doesn’t appear to include all of the research.

It does include everything. It's the narrative that comes from the few negative results, as well as the big Lancet article that was retracted that got the news very negative.

But if you know of missing studies please add them.

The disagreement of effectiveness is mostly about it being used in a late stage of the disease (as mentioned), not in early stage.

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

#282

Post by pfdietz »

rapjr9 wrote: post #275
pfdietz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if air-to-air heat exchangers could address that cost issue.

I've been thinking about getting two CPU cooling fans that have the heat sink at a distance from the fan and use a heat pipe to move the heat over to the fan and connecting them back-to-back so one fan blows outward and one blows inward. Something like two of these: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/151452729196-0-1/s-l1000.jpg https://prod.scorptec.com.au/10/299/65429/121859_large.jpg https://brain-images-ssl.cdn.dixons…

That would transfer sensible heat, but not latent heat.

Countercurrent exchange is the way to go with a scheme like this, so you'd want a series of pipes at varying temperature.

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

#283

Post by graeme »

CogentHedgehog wrote: post #267
graeme wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Governments have been slow to draw these lessons unfortunately. My local government (quebec) lets you remove masks at indoors events when seated.

Governments are generally slow to change guidance when evidence is limited or ambiguous. The problem here is that while we have pretty solid evidence for short-distance aerosol transmission in some cases, it will take time to understand how BIG a factor it is. One thing that is easy to forget as a layperson: when it comes to public health, the government only has a limited ability to influence public behavior. Think…

This is true. However, they jumped on the deep cleaning guidance pretty quickly despite limited evidence.

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

#284

Post by R0b0t1 »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #243
R0b0t1 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Aerosol transmission is the main vector. By strict definition, aerosol is not airborne. The behaviors converge, but there is a technical difference. It's particularly important when it comes to designing effective filtering material and sanitization processes.

Err.. what? Very fine particles are also included in aerosols. The definition I'm aware of is mostly based around whether there is an appreciable settling time.

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

#285

Post by vkou »

bsder wrote: post #269
echelon wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More important would be fixing the messaging on masks and protection. (Most laymen aren't going to distinguish between droplet, aerosol, airborne, etc. and won't adjust behavior and risk profiles accordingly.) The CDC told people that masks were not important at the start of the pandemic, largely as a means of reserving stock for doctors and first responders. They then performed an uneven and awkwardly stilted 180 on…

> The birth of the anti-mask movement, etc. Hogwash. Those people would have latched onto something else. The 1918 pandemic also had its "anti-mask" idiots. Stupid is timeless and universal. > You shouldn't lie to the public. Agreed. Calling an active pandemic a "liberal hoax" started a huge problem.

You are being unfairly downvoted.

You are right in that the anti-mask movement did not start because the CDC reversed its position. (Thank you for citing 1918 as a supporting point.) The anti-mask movement started because everything in American politics has to be turned into a right-left culture war, regardless of whether the issue is actually controversial, or if it has a simple, obvious solution.

The people leading the Covid denialist movement aren't stupid. They are just cynically scoring political points with their base.

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

#286

Post by aantix »

stronglikedan wrote: post #98
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 started with masks, not social distancing, so sticking to your original argument, I'd say that link you provided just indicates that masks worked well enough to protect the protestors, even without considering the social distancing aspect.

'social distancing' was a response to the parent.

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

#287

Post by aantix »

wonderwonder wrote: post #136
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.

Were you going to address the comments regarding your statement that people aren't wearing masks or are you just going to ignore them and try to find something else to reinforce your narrative about the 'participating demographic'?

People scream at the cops, without masks. The same for chanting. You can either muffle yourself, or lower the mask and project loudly.

With a few hours of intense marching, people naturally want to remove/adjust/lower the mask to talk/shout/run. Even with those wearing their masks, their effectiveness won't be 100%.

Which leads back to the OP's point - if the virus is airborne, why don't we see an uptick in deaths for that demographic?

Because the 'participating demographic' skews young.

“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?

#288

Post by gabaix »

timr wrote: post #228
SkyPuncher wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"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 is one of those "facts" that is often repeated, but which has little actual evidence if you bother to look for it. The WHO has been consistent that aerosol transmission of the virus is a theory with litt…

This is what the article challenges.

The author provides cases of events where infection by droplets cannot entirely explain the spread.

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

#289

Post by gabaix »

chc wrote: post #272
woeirua wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the media messaging around COVID has been a complete disaster from the moment it became apparent it was spreading in January in China. One of the main takeaways from this pandemic needs to be that doctors and experts need to learn how to say the words: "I don't know, but we are working hard to find out." Way too many people have made statements that later turned out to be false. The lack of any consistency and…

The messaging regarding masks was "They don't keep you from getting it, and everyone should be inside right now to avoid spreading it if they have it, so avoid buying a mask to make sure there are enough for people who need them." The messaging regarding masks now is, "They don't keep you from getting it, but they do stop you from spreading it, so since there are enough masks now for everyone, you should wear one." I…

“When to use mask:

- If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected #coronavirus infection.

- Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing”

WHO, Mar 1, https://twitter.com/who/status/1234095938555260929?s=21

“the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.”

WHO, Apr 6, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693

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

#290

Post by [deleted] »

chc wrote: post #272
woeirua wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the media messaging around COVID has been a complete disaster from the moment it became apparent it was spreading in January in China. One of the main takeaways from this pandemic needs to be that doctors and experts need to learn how to say the words: "I don't know, but we are working hard to find out." Way too many people have made statements that later turned out to be false. The lack of any consistency and…

The messaging regarding masks was "They don't keep you from getting it, and everyone should be inside right now to avoid spreading it if they have it, so avoid buying a mask to make sure there are enough for people who need them." The messaging regarding masks now is, "They don't keep you from getting it, but they do stop you from spreading it, so since there are enough masks now for everyone, you should wear one." I…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN