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

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

#171

Post by sgt101 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #132

jennyyang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't, then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected. The levels of people getting infected, and subsequently getting hospitalized would be far worse than the worst scenes we saw in Italy and NYC. Lockdowns absolutely would have been mandatory for months upon months. Coronavirus is not by itself a tremendously deadly disease. The problem is how infectious…

Um.. it is airborne, that is why there are multiple super-spreader events that can’t be explained by someone interacting within 3-6 feet for 10 minutes. (e.g. cases of 1 to 100, 1:500 case reported as well). If you walked into an empty hospital room that was just used with high air-virion density, you could get infected, that is why they decontaminate with the equipment you see. I think the main reason this isn’t bei…

Ok - these multiple superspreader events... do you mean 100's or 10's or a few? And when you say "can't be explained " really? Can you provide some back up to this information?

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

#172

Post by yellow_postit » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

ogre_codes wrote: post #149

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'…

Expect we will see a repeat of the bungled rush for air purifiers as we did with ventilators.

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

#173

Post by sgt101 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:18 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.

The solution here : don't lick the floor.

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

#174

Post by briandear » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:18 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…

> If coronavirus were truly airborne, then we would all need to wear masks all the time, even when no one is around.

Cloth masks wouldn’t protect against that. Masks don’t do anything to stop airborne spread, only potentially mitigating droplet spread.

Unless you are referring to biohazard respirators as “masks.”

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

#175

Post by clairity » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:19 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…

> "...SARS-CoV-2 is airborne stable in aerosol form for over 3 hours..."

see, this is the kind of insinuation that does none of us any good. it's like doing PCR to connote live virus particles live for 17 days on surfaces (spoiler: they don't).

with that said, i'm down for air purifiers in living spaces† for a whole host of good health reasons, but most commercial spaces and public buildings (like schools) already have HVAC systems incorporating HEPA filters (as good or better than N95 masks). whether the operators change the filters on an appropriate schedule is a different matter however. residential HVAC systems, at least in newer construction, also tend to have HEPA filters (but not always).

† i have a blue pure 211+ for my apartment: https://www.blueair.com/us/air-purifiers/blue-pure-211-plus/...

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

#176

Post by mc32 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:20 PM UTC

sgt101 wrote: post #173

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.

The solution here : don't lick the floor.

Understood but think pets and of children who could later carry it to you.

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

#177

Post by gdubs » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:21 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…

This is a bit of an outdated view on Coronavirus though. The whole point is that “airborne” isn’t black and white (which is how the WHO has treated it) and is more of a spectrum. A large number of scientists have been lobbying the WHO to get them to talk about it as airborne because it’s not just heavy droplets like people thought in the beginning. And there’s real concern that viral load can build up in poorly ventilated spaces. Which is why it’s a good idea to spend as little time in closed public spaces as possible, and why Fauci suggests that if you’re someone who needs to avoid it at all costs, then goggles are probably a good idea.

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

#178

Post by CogentHedgehog » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

There's one key paragraph buried in the article that will help a lot of people:

> However, to date, there is also no evidence of truly long-range transmission of COVID-19, or any pattern of spread like that of measles. Screaming “it’s airborne!” can give the wrong impression to an already weary and panicked public, and that’s one reason that some public-health specialists have been understandably wary of the term, sometimes even if they agreed aerosol transmission was possible. Cowling told me that it’s better to call these “short-range aerosols,” as that communicates the nature of the threat more accurately: Most of these particles are concentrated around the infected person, but, under the right circumstances, they can accumulate and get around.

Translation: people can get infected further away than with larger droplets -- especially in stuffy, enclosed environments -- but distance still reduces the risks.

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

#179

Post by ogre_codes » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

yellow_postit wrote: post #172

ogre_codes wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Expect we will see a repeat of the bungled rush for air purifiers as we did with ventilators.

As with the ventilators, a bungled rush for them is better than not using them at all. Obviously if they had a more ordered distribution it would be better, but any movement in the correct direction would be an improvement.

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

#180

Post by war1025 » Mon, Aug 03, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #164

war1025 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A thing I really wish would catch on is people actually leaving their windows open to get proper ventilation of their living spaces. Air purifiers seems like a great idea, but if the outside is the safest place in terms of the virus, bringing the outside in to you seems like a no-brainer. In general, I'd say outdoor air beats indoor air probably 99 times out of 100.

It is all about virion particles per cubic meter (similar to how they classify class ## cleanrooms for the semiconductor, but in that case they talk about dust particles). Outdoor air works through dilution (‘the solution to pollution is dilution’ is the phrase often used). Indoor air being purified is often much cleaner than outdoor air (assuming CO2 levels are not of any concern), this is especially true during wil…

> this is especially true during wildfire season

Curious what if any effect that would have over here in Iowa. I would guess negligible, but we do get high-level haze occasionally when there are wildfires in Canada.

> If you purchase a PM2.5 sensor

I have been curious about these in the past. Do you have any recommendations? I couldn't find enough info to feel comfortable that whatever I bought might actually tell me useful things.

> Indoor air being purified is often much cleaner than outdoor air

As a more or less believer in the Hygiene Hypothesis [1], I'm not convinced that this is a good thing. But I guess also most people don't have purified air in their homes so purified stale air is probably better than just regular stale air.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis