Live data from Hacker News

Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

theatlantic.com

31–40 of 292 posts

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

#31
Short-distance aerosol transmission changes things a bit:

* Social distancing isn't enough to guarantee safety in indoors spaces: bad news for bars, clubs, gyms, concerts, and restaurants

* Outdoors spaces are probably safer than we previously thought

* Indoor mask-wearing becomes CRITICAL in public spaces

* Indoor ventilation becomes extra important, using fresh air from outside or filtered/UV-sanitized air

* Indoor air purifiers with HEPA ratings or UV sterilizer features may become valuable

But the same overall guidance still applies: avoid crowds, wear a mask, keep your distance, outdoors activities are safer than indoors activities

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

#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 people. Measles is airborne transmission, which means that if someone with measles enters a room, that room can be infectious for 12+ hours because viruses will be infectious in the dust. If someone with coronavirus sneezes in a room, the large heavy droplets will quickly fall to the ground. If you breathe in the droplets then you can catch the virus, but these only stay in the air for seconds. However, there are microdroplets which stay in the air for 30+ minutes depending on the air currents.

So there is a distinction between them. If coronavirus were truly airborne, then we would all need to wear masks all the time, even when no one is around. No where would be safe and we would have to implement extremely strict lockdowns.

But the fact that scientists and doctors have chosen to use the term "airborne" in both have made it extremely confusing and given how quickly information and misinformation is disseminated these days, they need to choose terms with care from now on.

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

#33
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…

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.

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

#35
post #26
post #19

One problem is that no one seems to know that AC systems recirculate air. I literally can't get people to believe me when I tell them this. When buying a window unit recently, some models had the ability to incorporate fresh outside air but the cheaper ones didn't. My home is leaky enough that I worry more about keeping outside air out rather than in, though.

Do people not use the recirc switch in their car?

I think this actually makes it more understandable. If recirc is a special mode you have to activate in your car's AC, then it's reasonable to assume it's not the default mode for your house AC too. Since they never had a 'recirc' button to press at home, they'd assume it doesn't recirculate. Reasonable, but inaccurate.

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

#36

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?

If I had to guess, it's because sanitizing surfaces all day is cheaper/easier than upgrading the ventilation system.

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

#37

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.

Yeah, this is the fundamental failure of this administration. Months ago we could have designed a high quality and visually unique mask with less than N95 efficiency but with a reasonable safety and comfort level. We should already have been manufacturing and distributing them at cost. They should be mandatory in all enclosed spaces and we could have prevented a lot of the spike in spread we are seeing now and are likely to see as more and more things open up.

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

#38
Yes it's a well written article by a clearly intelligent author who did his homework and knows his sources and of course we should never have ruled out short range aerosols. It's ridiculous. I think it only happened because so many people just believe whatever authorities like the CDC and WHO tell them without any critical reasoning applied. If these health agencies had not effectively ruled out the possibility afaik without any supporting evidence maybe there would have been more research to figure out droplet sizes and travel paths under various airflow conditions. Currently everyone seems to just want to make assumptions and stick to them, but that isn't science even if you call yourself a scientist.

Maybe also N95 masks would have been considered essential not only just to health care workers and maybe more effort might have been made to supply some to the general population. Currently 3M for instance voluntarily stopped selling their masks except to hospitals and speaking of those masks there is also not enough research on effective ways of decontaminating those masks without reducing their filtration effectiveness so that they can be reused more often and so that more can be made available to the public instead of effectively making them hospital only.

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

#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 noticable percent. It's also something everyone can do, and it gives everyone a sense of control over the situation - enough of a sense, at least, to prevent chaos.

Talking about airborne transmission, though? The kind of masks that can protect against that are hard to come by. Not to mention that the virus could enter via the fluid of the eyes (not trying to add conspiracy here, just trying to make a point about the difficult reality of preventing infection [0]). Bio-rated goggles and N95+ rated masks are more than we can expect from a public that's making face masks out of bandannas.

I think we're seeing very pragmatic statements being made, that are tailored to a public that can't enter full biohazard mode and need to not panic.

[0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.085613v2

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

#40

This comes to mind every time I see a company/business emphasize how much priority they're putting on keeping people safe, and then only speaking about disinfecting every surface throughout the day. While it doesn't hurt to keep surfaces clean, we continue to see evidence that the majority of cases have come from airborne spread in an enclosed environment with poor ventilation. If there's any lasting change to buildi…

Because wiping high-contact surfaces a few times a day is cheap, easy to do, and highly visible. And, hopefully, an easy extension of nightly cleaning that was already happening.

Reworking your HVAC system to provide better circulation, filtration, and/or more fresh air is expensive, often an ongoing cost, and probably invisible to the end customer.

I guess you could say it's well-intentioned virtue signaling.

Post reply on HN