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

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

#141

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

I am sympathetic to what the WHO did here, they realize that the average person is going to be extremely fearful when they realize that stagnant air could contain virion particles hours after being sneezed in (which is what the data show).

They should have erred on telling people, because then we would have had months to ramp up room air purifiers before school starts... (I have been saying this for months, and am surprised by the lack of scientific leadership in ‘science’ organizations).

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

#142

Post by noahtallen » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:26 PM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #122

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…

The WHOLE POINT of the article is to educate you about the difference between droplets (ballistic) and aerosols (behave like a gas). It doesn't look like you, or the people replying to you read the article. And thats a shame, because you're exactly the type of person who the author is trying to educate.

I believe that’s why the parent comment said scientists and medical experts should improve how they explain terms going forward. People like OP should not be this confused about how the virus spreads after 4 months of hearing about it all the time. I’m glad we have magazines helping fix that problem now, but communication from places like the CDC hasn’t been totally understandable to normal people. (Add a healthy dose of misinformation and propaganda and you get today’s situation :))

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

#143

Post by milesvp » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:27 PM UTC

MiguelVieira wrote: post #56

When I look at this heat map of recent cases per capita in the US https://globalepidemics.org/key-metrics-for-covid-suppressio... the first thing I see is hot spots all across the southeast and desert southwest. These places have widely varying governments and cultures, but the one thing they do have in common right now is: they're hot. My suspicion is that many of the outbreaks we've seen recently are caused by peop…

This is something I currently speculate too. Hotter states really benefited from AC allowing people to live there comfortably. I think it might show us what’s coming as people move indoors in colder months elsewhere.

It’s getting harder and harder to stay away from people from a purely psychological standpoint, and I think fall is going to get bad in the PNW as people congregate indoors to stay out of the wet and cold.

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

#144

Post by wonderwonder » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

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.

It is common knowledge. They are doing the deep cleaning as a means to calm the masses. They know it does not really go any distance towards solving the issue but they don't want / have the funding nor the political capital to address the ventilation issue.

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

#145

Post by dalyons » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:32 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.

why would that matter? transmission from surfaces is apparently quite low, and it doesnt last long on surfaces, and its not like im touching / eating off anything my shoes come into contact with anyway. This feels like an incredibly low risk vector

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

#146

Post by ogre_codes » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

jennyyang wrote: post #112

raziel2p wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with your conclusion. Airborne is airborne regardless of whether it's 5 minutes or 12 hours. The point of the word is to tell people that you can become infected without being in direct physical contact with them. Trying to come up with words for different durations of airborne is only going to make it more confusing, even if it becomes less ambiguous to the people who know the difference between the te…

I disagree. You need to treat the virus at the right level of concern otherwise you lose credibility. As we can all see, credibility from the experts needs to be maintained, otherwise no one trusts them anyone. The whole fiasco with masks is because the experts told us things that were obviously wrong at the beginning (ie. masks don't work, masks won't help regular people, etc). If there is airborne droplet transmiss…

> If it was truly "airborne", which it isn't, then the measures would need to be much, much more draconian otherwise it would spread much quicker.

You need to make up your mind here, are you talking to professionals, or lay people?

To lay people the term airborne means it spreads by air... which is what it does. The fact that it doesn't linger in the air for 12 hours is secondary and would need to be addressed in whatever policy is put in place.

Since we don't need lay-people to understand what the virus isn't, the term airborne is just fine.

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

#147

Post by klysm » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #141

I am sympathetic to what the WHO did here, they realize that the average person is going to be extremely fearful when they realize that stagnant air could contain virion particles hours after being sneezed in (which is what the data show). They should have erred on telling people, because then we would have had months to ramp up room air purifiers before school starts... (I have been saying this for months, and am su…

Why should the WHO not incite fear if the fear is entirely rational and justified? People not being afraid enough is exactly how people die.

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

#148

Post by mc32 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

dalyons wrote: post #145

mc32 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why would that matter? transmission from surfaces is apparently quite low, and it doesnt last long on surfaces, and its not like im touching / eating off anything my shoes come into contact with anyway. This feels like an incredibly low risk vector

Low but greater than the “aerosolized” vector. When people sneeze, it land on surfaces (like floors), when they cough, etc.

If surfaces were not a problem, we wouldn’t be using wipes and sanitizers. So why ignore one possibility and stress another?

When people take off their shoes they can get contaminated. If they have pets the pets will pick some up and get it on you, etc.

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

#149

Post by ogre_codes » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

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…

My wife works in a doctors office which has stayed open through the pandemic. She sees a few people a day in a small room. The very first thing she did after the pandemic hit the US, was buy an air purifier and she runs it continually. I'm quite surprised that they aren't more common in medical offices in general. The benefits of the air filter are cumulative with other protections—particles caught by the filter can't bypass the mask.

Filters should be mandatory in any enclosed room, the fact that they don't even talk about them as part of the discussion about schools and businesses opening is mind boggling to me.

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

#150

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #68

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…

> we would have to implement extremely strict lockdowns... if we assume that the goal is not to flatten the curve but to completely stop the virus in its tracks. Most people and countries don't have this goal. Edit: To those downvoting, I'll just say that my statement is factual, so argue the facts. Long-term, we want a vaccine, yes. In the meantime, most people and countries are simply not willing to do what it take…

> I'll just say that my statement is factual

> assume

> goal

An assumption is not a fact. A goal isn't a fact either.

While total elimination is probably impossible, plenty of places have managed almost complete suppression to the point where it's more like E. Coli; occasional outbreaks, but action taken to contain it.

"flatten the curve" is now associated with "herd immunity" and other discredited ideas.