Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 292 posts

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

#61

Post by enraged_camel »

mc32 wrote: post #55
enraged_camel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article addresses this midway through. The problem is that even the experts haven't really agreed on terminology. They need to do that first before they can hope to inform the public. :)

So why talk about HVAC systems ? Context: >” by 10 bottles of hand sanitizer without a word on ventilation—whether it was opening windows, employing upgraded filters in its HVAC systems, or using portable HEPA filters. It seems baffling that despite mounting evidence of its importance, we are stuck practicing hygiene theater...”

Sorry, what do you mean?

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

#62

Post by doliveira »

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…

I am a little confused. It seems that most people knew it was a risk; that's why stores, gyms, churches, etc were closed in the first place, wasn't it? Together with the warnings to avoid inner spaces.

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

#63

Post by danaliv »

aantix wrote: post #33
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…

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.

> Unencumbered by a mask.

That hasn’t been my experience. Every action I’ve attended has had clear messaging leading up to it about masks and social distancing, and attendees have adhered to guidelines.

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

#64

Post by mc32 »

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.

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

#65

Post by misanthropian00 »

CogentHedgehog wrote: post #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…

More emphasis on better masks that actually might prevent aerosol transmission and less emphasis on 6 foot distancing because such things matter little under aerosol conditions where air flow patterns dominate transmission. Also much more emphasis on outdoor vs indoor activities. So no it is not really the same guidance.

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

#66

Post by ghaff »

sigstoat wrote: post #51
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…

> 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 b…

I think that's what the parent was saying. The widespread wearing of just about any face covering seems to help on net even if it's probably >50% about protecting other people. Even if higher-level protective gear were readily available, most people wouldn't wear for any length of time and it wouldn't be fitted properly. So just wear something seems to be the most reasonable advice for the general population.

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

#67

Post by sailfast »

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.

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

#68

Post by jtbayly »

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 takes to completely eliminate this virus. They think it would be nice if the virus went away, but they are not working towards that as their goal.

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

#69

Post by misanthropian00 »

DanBC wrote: post #46
CogentHedgehog wrote: post #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…

> Indoor mask-wearing becomes CRITICAL in public spaces Mask wearing provides minimal benefits against droplet transmission, but they do nothing at all for small droplet aerosol transmission.

What do you consider a small droplet? The masks are tested with 0.3 micron droplets. Do you have a source?

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

scythe wrote: post #52

One issue is that we seem to have an all-or-nothing view of infection. People think that either a virus gets in your nose and you get sick, or it doesn't and you're fine. This extends to thinking that either there is a risk or there isn't, which motivates incorrect anti-mask arguments. In reality, the probability of infection varies continuously with the degree of exposure, and the minimal infective dose might be pre…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN