Nonsense. The pathogens in urine, shit, and corpses are almost never airborne. And the fumes are only toxic in extremely high concentrations. The chance of getting sick is effectively zero.
Nonsense. The risk is nonzero. Turbid air takes a toll both physically and mentally, and can lead to inflammation and weakening of the body's defenses. Your definition of sick is quite narrow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compound
No you're just making things up. The link you posted doesn't support your statement.
You still eat fresh fruits and vegetables, touch the surfaces on your way to work etc. There’re countless pathogens everywhere. So I guess we would be fine? You’re right that our immune system didn’t evolve to be in a sterile environment. But we also weren’t meant to be that close to that many humans.
>So I guess we would be fine? Can you catch airborne respiratory diseases from eating fruit? What I'm saying is: we run the risk of never being able to go outside again if we eliminate all airborne pathogens.
> Can you catch airborne respiratory diseases from eating fruit?
I'm willing to speculate that exposing our immune system to surface pathogens helps deal with airborne pathogens.
. Singapore is at 31% one shot(from your link), US is at 47 and rising. Of course you would still be able to get spikes in cases at only 31%, that’s expected. The mRNA vaccines are stupendously effective at stopping all variants thus far. Not sure what evidence aside from fear point to covid being able to mutate past them. We good, and it’s ok to accept that and have hope, not everything has to be fear-for-the-worst
Is 45-47% efficacy at preventing infection against B.1.351 & P.1 “stupendously effective at stopping all variants?” http://www.healthdata.org/covid/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-su...
I may be reading it wrong, but from your link it says 76% and 79% (pzifer & moderna) disease prevention against 351&p1. Which is still great. Note that’s just infection, the data shows the vaxxes have near 100% chance of preventing you from having more than mild/moderate symptoms.
So yeah, stupendously effective, and we shouldn’t be panicking about variants.
There’s a saying, earthquakes don’t kill people—buildings kill people when they collapse. In the open air on a grassland, covid won’t kill a population. The design of our hermetically sealed buildings is what’s killing us. Back in the 1970s the air outside was full of lead and smog, so the safest thing too was completely seal all office buildings. Today the air inside probably contains more hydrocarbons (from volatil…
>Of course, that flies in the face of all efforts to make things green…which involve better insulation, sealing windows against leaks, more air filtration systems and etc. If anyone has a half-hour of time to waste, you can look into the science of "countercurrent heat exchangers". It's fascinating to see how 2 pipes of air current switch temperatures when they're in contact and moving in opposite directions. So if y…
> "countercurrent heat exchangers"
Very interesting! The concept makes a lot of sense, and I was able to find some companies online that produce such a thing, often under the phrase "counterflow heat exchanger".
Frustratingly there's little details online for actual pricing, but you can find the bare exchange units on ebay for $200-300.
From the article: "It is not known exactly what fraction of infections could be prevented if all building and transport ventilation systems on the planet were ideal (in terms of controlling airborne infections), or the cost of design and retrofitting to make them ideal." I think this is the key question. Surely better ventilation would have prevented some infections in the covid pandemic. But how many? And to decide…
The WHO and CDC have had their head in the sand for 60 years when it comes to airborne pathogens. They have only acknowledged aerosol transmission of covid in the last couple weeks. It was physicists who had to figure out why they were domatically denying reality. https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
that's fascinating, are CDC and WHO officials even practicing physicians? Would that have helped any?
Overall air quality is an issue. We "consume" more air than anything else. Every day. All day. Day after day. Pathogens are a concern. But conditions and elements that have negative impact on the lungs - and help prime such tissue for invaders and disease - should be addressed as well.
I find it regrettable that the things we eat and drink get so much more attention than the air we breathe in regards to health.
It's funny (not) cause bad air is a known killer. Yet it gets crickets. I'd add noise to that list as well. Something we should be more aware of.
It's sad to see people fall victim to mysophobia (germaphobia) and related obsessive mental disorders. They can be more harmful to overall health than actual viruses. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/cleanliness-rul...
You are using concern trolling tactics to accuse someone else of mental disorder for taking an interest in safety precautions during an uncontrolled global pandemic. This is not only rude, it is also dangerous. Please stop.
How dare you accuse me of "concern trolling". As if that was even a thing. The suggestion was completely irrational, unscientific, and not based on an interest in safety.
That has significant costs on the energy efficiency of buildings and would blunt a lot of the progress we're making on combating climate change. Not saying it shouldn't be done but it should be done in a smart way that balances between tradeoffs.
You can use heat exchangers between outlet and inlet air to mitigate a good portion of the energy cost I believe.
If the outflow is not compressed, you can transfer at most half of the heat and that is under perfect conditions.