Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2 • Hacker News Board

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#101

Post by Asymmetryk » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:26 AM UTC

tharkun__ wrote: post #64

christophilus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recollection was that they banned disagreeing with the WHO[0]. The examples given in that article are fair enough for banning, but they banned scientists who were not quite so crazy[1]. Anyway, that’s based on my memory (which is often faulty), but those links seem to corroborate it. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52388586 [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/46573762/why-is-yo...

They are not the only ones at all. Same thing happened to a lot of other people. There was for example a lot of good information from the Italian National Institute of Health that simply listed the number and type of comorbidities in deceased Covid patients. Mentioning these numbers, even with proper citation was cause for being banned/not being approved by moderators. It didn't fit the official narrative. Like my si…

my goodness the only thing that I can think of is that people are going to get incredibly angry, if these histories get parsed accurately by the wider public.

I'm not saying the general public, only a wider range of people who are less susceptible to being spun probably is enough of the population to swing the ultimate public views.

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#102

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

neilwilson wrote: post #91

timr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To my knowledge masks are a low cost / lost risk way to reduce the spread, and countries that had faster uptake and higher rates of compliance in mask usage did see lower overall case counts. 1) This isn't really true. There's not a lot of correlation between what nations/states did, and where they ended up. You can find observational papers on both sides of every question (for example, specific to masks, recently:…

Trials on masks universally fail to take into account the field results. And that’s where they fall down. Mask effectiveness relies on purity - everybody doing things with military (or medical) precision. The short of it is that people don’t stick rigidly to the effectiveness requirement. Hence why states and countries that stop compulsion don’t see any deviation in the rate of change. Like HCQ it works in the lab, b…

[deleted]

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#103

Post by laurent92 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:40 AM UTC

darkteflon wrote: post #12

laurent92 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve bought the Coway AP-1512AH which filters air, and is extremely silent, and I have a separate CO2-PM10-PM2.5 measurer. It does wonders against asthma. PMs go from 25microgram/m3 to 1 in half an hour, which I trust because the measurement tool is separate. I never succeeded to have less than 10 before the Coway. Before that, I would sneeze first thing in the morning, then sneeze by rows of 10 times in Spring, 30 t…

Can I ask why you chose this brand and this model? I’m looking for an air filter but have no idea which brands to trust.

I chose it because someone mentioned it on HN, and said it was:

- silent

- HEPA

- non-AI/IoT

I was afraid it was a paid sponsored comment, but after comparing versions and prices, I tried it and was satisfied. It’s ugly though, looks straight out of the 60ies with its rounded corners.

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#104

Post by swader999 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:43 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #4

I've been reading stuff like this for some time now, I actually had our ventilation redone, albeit for non-Covid reasons because we had too much dust due to leaky vents causing asthma issues and it makes things a lot better even without worrying about Covid. I never could find any easy/good way to add UV to the mix without having to redo everything again, though. I wonder if anyone knows any easy/simple add-ons like…

I added this to my main furnace duct. Easier than the bidet upgrade.

https://www.odorstop.com/os72pro-72-watt-uv-air-purifier-wit...

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#105

Post by SllX » Mon, May 31, 2021, 5:44 AM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #85

SllX wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately they didn’t have an attention monopoly either, in part because they didn’t have an information monopoly. :)

Not for lack of trying however. Bear in mind the big tech companies all adopted an explicit policy of, "information that disagrees with the WHO is forbidden" and proceeded to ban lots of qualified commentators for trying to present non WHO approved information. They did this with the full approval and encouragement of the WHO itself. I'm slightly disturbed by the casualness of this thread actually. The WHO is not mer…

I read the narrative a bit differently than you: in the face of misinformation from an international health organization and friends, private society prevailed in figuring out WTF was actually going on, eventually, and WHO critics were able to get their message out.

This is also one of the reasons I have argued vigorously against over-regulating tech companies and their moderation practices: they deserve the chance to shoot themselves in the foot with gusto, and lose or win credibility with their user base dependent upon how they react to societal changes. It is a slow painful process, but society is developing antibodies to their practices and there are no shortcuts, no regulatory equivalent of an mRNA vaccine that won’t just turn a privileged few into quasi-public entities. If we can avoid doing that, social networks will likely go through a cycle of fragmentation over time that will counteract any kind of centralized planning or coordination between a few big giants.

So what do we do about the WHO? You’re asking the wrong question there. Do what you did to protect yourself and your loved ones this time and recognize, as was obvious since at least February 2020, that the WHO isn’t to be taken as the source of truth on anything. It’s an offshoot of a diplomatic forum and acts like it because that is its nature. Even if the rank and file are doing good work, the officers are from countries that don’t trust each other, and have interests other than what their official role is. That doesn’t render it completely useless, but it isn’t completely useful either. You can’t control what allegiances other people have, only account for them.

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#106

Post by flor1s » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:10 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #68

kevin_nisbet wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if I should interpret this as masks are an ineffective tool, or more narrowly that combined with other efforts it's unclear what the impact was since there's a large degree of opinion on the matter compared to data with a higher standard of a peer reviewed double blind study. With masks being such a hot topic in certain regions, it would seem unreasonable to conclude that there is only correlation availa…

Note that I've edited my comment to better reflect my thoughts (probably since you wrote this). I don't think you should take this one paper as some kind of definitive rebuttal on masks. You should interpret it as a reasonable summary of current evidence, as well as a not-terrible analysis of US states that poses some serious challenges to the effectiveness of mask mandates. That said, an editorial/letter in science…

> Regions with an early interest in face masks had milder COVID-19 epidemics, according to a new letter-to-the-editor published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. (the source of the Science Daily article: https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.202004-1188...)

I don't see how this is much less scientific than the non-peer-reviewed paper you posted.

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#107

Post by faeriechangling » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

nmz wrote: post #95

SllX wrote: post #6

> The who therefore played down the risks of aerosols, issuing guidance via its Twitter and Facebook pages at the end of March 2020 that the general public need not worry. “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne,” it said, adding that any claims to the contrary were “misinformation”. Not quite the money quote, but on reading this I wanted to point out one little thing. This is also a form of authoritarianism, not the splashy…

> FACT: COVID-19 is NOT airborne. > The coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks. > To protect yourself: > -keep 1m distance from others > -disinfect surfaces frequently > -wash/rub your > -avoid touching your From: https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/fact-covid-19-is-not-airb... Further reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/05/28/who…

Years later I still run into people not aware of the semantics and the difference between a disease being an aerosol and a disease being airborne. Which smacks of poor communication.

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#108

Post by shaicoleman » Mon, May 31, 2021, 6:20 AM UTC

nmz wrote: post #95

SllX wrote: post #6

> The who therefore played down the risks of aerosols, issuing guidance via its Twitter and Facebook pages at the end of March 2020 that the general public need not worry. “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne,” it said, adding that any claims to the contrary were “misinformation”. Not quite the money quote, but on reading this I wanted to point out one little thing. This is also a form of authoritarianism, not the splashy…

> FACT: COVID-19 is NOT airborne. > The coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks. > To protect yourself: > -keep 1m distance from others > -disinfect surfaces frequently > -wash/rub your > -avoid touching your From: https://www.facebook.com/WHO/posts/fact-covid-19-is-not-airb... Further reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2021/05/28/who…

Interesting to look at the replies to the Facebook post from over a year ago.

It was patently clear to everyone back then that the WHO was wrong about this.

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#109

Post by switch007 » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:00 AM UTC

jansan wrote: post #90

rwallace wrote: post #9

There is a lot of low hanging fruit in this area being ignored. Here in Ireland, the pandemic is still raging and they are reopening stores – okay, that's a tradeoff on which reasonable people can disagree. But then there's no air circulating in the stores. Ventilation could be significantly improved by such a trivial measure as keeping the front door propped open, but they don't bother. Why not?

With a current average of 3 deaths per day in Ireland, how can you call the pandemic "raging"?

The media has moved on to cases and variants to scare people now. Didn’t you get the memo? ;)

Re: Improving ventilation will help curb SARS-CoV-2

#110

Post by teddyh » Mon, May 31, 2021, 7:08 AM UTC

laurent92 wrote: post #103

darkteflon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask why you chose this brand and this model? I’m looking for an air filter but have no idea which brands to trust.

I chose it because someone mentioned it on HN, and said it was: - silent - HEPA - non-AI/IoT I was afraid it was a paid sponsored comment, but after comparing versions and prices, I tried it and was satisfied. It’s ugly though, looks straight out of the 60ies with its rounded corners.

Off topic: See, this is what happens when enough people try to use a mild word for something bad they’re doing in order to try to hide the badness: other people who see this usage alter their perceived meaning of the mild word to represent what they see as prevalent usage. The mild word comes to mean the bad thing.

In this example, “sponsored”. A more accurate term in this case would have been something like “paid dishonest shill”, but the constant use of “sponsored” by paid shills (esp. on YouTube) has altered our perception of the word “sponsored”. I would not be surprised if soon many companies would like to move away from that word and not be “sponsors” anymore, and instead be “supporters”, etc.

It’s the reverse of the euphemism treadmill, really.