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

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

#101

Post by jakear » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

obelos wrote: post #54

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.

They're in the extremely well ventilated outdoors, and at least at the protests I was at there were very few people not wearing masks. Also, people in these gatherings tend to mill about, which means any contact with a stream of virus-infused exhalations will be brief and less likely to introduce a viable quantity into you.

I haven’t seen any research on this, but is there a chance being introduced to very small viral loads could actually improve your expected future health? We know that larger loads are harder to fight and produce worse symptoms, but what of “mico-loads”? It would seem they should almost act as a semi-vaccine: you get an easy to fight and low symptom load once, then you’ve created antibodies for the future. So long as you continue to be exposed to micro-loads in day to day life, those antibodies shouldn’t go away, and you’ll be safe from any potential “mega-load”.

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

#102

Post by dpeck » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #64

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…

One important point that comes out of this is that few people are stressing shoe sole hygiene. Not necessarily meaning that one has to scrub them often, but to be mindful of what it touches (car interior mats, mats at home and possibly if people don’t take off their shoes, all over the house, hands taking off shoes, shoe racks, etc.) Given that droplets mean the virus will accumulate on floors and such surfaces.

A place to put outside shoes and put on inside slippers (flip flops in my case) is good for clean floors anyway. I highly recommend, whether that’s a little mudroom or just a walled rubber/plastic container to take off shoes.

That said, I’m not sure it does much for this particular virus, but it can’t hurt and your floors (especially carpets, but those are nasty anyway) stay much cleaner.

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

#103

Post by ColanR » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

sailfast wrote: post #67

ColanR wrote: post #39

We probably aren't hearing about it because it's something we have less ability to protect against. I remember a popular comment here a while back mentioning that epidemeologists' job is partly public relations, trying to figure out what they can tell the general public that will minimize the viral spread. Making sure everyone wears masks will, at the scale of the general population, reduce the infection rate by some…

UV-C light in your air conditioning unit or some higher end filters might solve the recirculation issues, no? When people must be inside, we could probably make it much safer for them to do so even without the equipment you mention.

> might solve the recirculation issues, no?

No.

Another half-baked 'solution' will cut the infection rate by some fraction of a percent, and we'll be right back where we were before: right here, asking why we aren't being told about proper solutions.

Just like the masks, which as TFA is discussing, don't actually address one of the primary transmission vectors.

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

#104

Post by ColanR » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #100

ColanR wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have several (medical) doctors in my family. They were pretty clear from the beginning that what the WHO was saying was BS. They pretty much agreed with what you're relating; I don't think it's doctors in general who are ignorant of how a virus gets transmitted. I completely agree with your first point; but what we need to seriously question is the cherry-picking of sources that were paraded in front of us by the m…

YouTube took it upon themselves to ban any videos that contradicted the WHO statements.

Don't you love it when people force their opinons on you, 'for your own good'?

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

#105

Post by spanhandler » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:57 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.

Staff may go to schools even when they're closed for students. That may not have been the case there, but cleaning a "closed" school isn't necessarily ridiculous.

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

#106

Post by DoofusOfDeath » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:57 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #27

There is a weird disconnect. Everyone seems to acknowledge the most likely way to transmit COVID is via droplets when indoor. Yet, there is little discussion about ventilation. Maybe people felt like there was less they could do?

Fluid dynamics are notoriously complicated. And AFAIK we also lack good models for how long any particular aerosol cloud remains dangerous over time / travel-distance. That makes it really hard for (most?) anyone to quantify the risk level of a particular environment, or to design a mitigation with well-understood risk/cost tradeoffs.

Compare that to a simple ballistic model, where:

- most adults can intuitively grasp and apply such a model, and

- it's somewhat easier to calculate a risk/cost tradeoff for mitigations.

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

#107

Post by csours » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 3:59 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…

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

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

#108

Post by obelos » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

jakear wrote: post #101

obelos wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're in the extremely well ventilated outdoors, and at least at the protests I was at there were very few people not wearing masks. Also, people in these gatherings tend to mill about, which means any contact with a stream of virus-infused exhalations will be brief and less likely to introduce a viable quantity into you.

I haven’t seen any research on this, but is there a chance being introduced to very small viral loads could actually improve your expected future health? We know that larger loads are harder to fight and produce worse symptoms, but what of “mico-loads”? It would seem they should almost act as a semi-vaccine: you get an easy to fight and low symptom load once, then you’ve created antibodies for the future. So long as…

I don't know if there's data specific to SARS-CoV-2, but this is the mechanism behind inoculation (as opposed to vaccination). This method was used to reduce smallpox deaths before vaccination had been developed.

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

#109

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

elliekelly wrote: post #15

j_walter wrote: post #4

My company took steps to address this months ago. The re-circulation rate was set to zero so all air is fresh make up air from outside. This has significantly increased our cooling bill since it's summer, but it was something that we felt important even though there hasn't been much science to back it up. We also have a UV system hooked up to our system, but this has been installed for the last 2-3 years now.

How does that work? Is it just a setting on industrial HVAC systems or did it require someone coming out and reconfiguring things? I’ve heard some schools are considering leaving the windows open year-round while running the heat/AC to get air turnover. Maybe because those HVAC systems are dated?

Most big HVAC systems have this ability. On a rooftop unit usually it's as simple as a hatch that you slide; a split system would have to have a separate fresh air duct you can control with a damper. Newer systems typically have explicit fresh air makeup systems with heat exchangers.

Most schools with forced air ventilation should already have such a capability, if they bothered to look. If not, if would certainly be cheaper to have one installed than to leave the windows open. But of course, it may be easier to do one than the other bureaucratically.

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

#110

Post by WhompingWindows » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:03 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…

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 controversy and debate, but let's not use that to pile onto the anti-science, anti-vax, anti-medical chorus which is gaining steam on the internet. Some doctors get things wrong: most doctors, however, enact evidence-based practices which have been vetted by statisticians, chemists, and physicists who help innovate and inform medical decision-making.

As high-minded as our concerns about doctors being incorrect might be, let's keep a wide view here and not tear down a vast-majority noble and expert profession. Let's have a nuanced discussion where we admit doctors are both experts, highly select, but also people with flaws too.