11 ms·

I think this is very wrong. Looking back I think this distinction is what people will point to as the big mistake people made. This idea of large droplets in i

I think this is very wrong. Looking back I think this distinction is what people will point to as the big mistake people made. This idea of large droplets in itself is basically meaningless. I encourage everyone to read [O] very carefully. This thing will shed into the air, and it will infect others. Countries that encourage everyone to wear masks will succeed in containing this. There is way too much bs being discussed around large droplets. The paper I link to is looking at influenza A in particular, but I am making the very strong assertion that SARS-CoV-2 will show significant homology with regard to transmission behavior. I think the rates of infection alone bear this out if people think clearly about this. [O] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843947/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843947/

James_Henry 7y ago
Yes, this article points out that aerosols are much smaller than droplets and that health officials see this event as evidence of the aerosolization of the coronavirus. The aerosolized virus may even stay in the air for 30 minutes. It seems we all should be wearing masks in public!
libertine 7y ago
>Countries that encourage everyone to wear masks will succeed in containing this. Isn't the main reason for the success of this measure precisely to make any infected people retain droplets (big or small) inside the mask? I'm not saying it doesn't offer any protection from droplets in the air, but the main motivation was containing droplets. In this case, Choir practice it's literally a spit fest - you're singing loudly in a tightly packed large group of people. It's like the perfect scenario for spread. Even if they are in rows, you get them on your head, neck, shoulders, hands, pants, sheets of paper you're holding, even shoes. Also, if it is indeed suspended in air, then wouldn't the minimum requirement be N95 masks?
- aeroevan 7y ago
  >Isn't the main reason for the success of this measure precisely to make any infected people retain droplets (big or small) inside the mask? The one thing that people don't seem to think about is even if it's only effective at keeping droplets from infected people from spreading, how are all of the asymptomatic supposed to know they should wear a mask? The obvious solution is that everyone should wear a mask. I think people keep discouraging mask use due to the shortage, but if people are misinforming the public due to a shortage that's still not cool
  - libertine 7y ago
    Oh most definitely - agreed 100%! Communication wise isn't straight forward, but in this case I think the masses should know it bluntly. "You could be a source of spread, so use a mask in public." Because on one side I understand that "use masks" might give a sense of false security, and stresses supply chains... but there are other ways of doing it - promote community production, even if it is rudimentary. Some countries are using prisons. I mean, there are ways around it.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I think people keep discouraging mask use due to the shortage, but if people are misinforming the public due to a shortage that's still not cool I haven't seen ant misinformation discouraging mask use. I have seen people point out: (1) it is most critical that healthcare workers have masks, (2) masks are not particularly effective for protecting the wearer, but they are very helpful for protecting others from the wearer. #2 is enough to discourage use from the selfish who are unconcerned with social consequences, #1 tends to discourage those who are concerned with social consequences, given the supply shortage.
    - freepor 7y ago
      But it's bullshit, because non-N95 masks are effective at protecting the wearer, about half as effective as N95 masks, and if "selfish" people wear masks to protect themselves they will also protect others from themselves. The authorities are feeding the public bullshit to protect mask supply, and the public isn't stupid enough to believe it, but social norms will have to change in the US quite a bit before wearing masks everywhere all time time (even with no pandemic, as is common in many parts of Asia) will become socially acceptable.
- codekilla 7y ago
  No--emphatically no. N95 will protect you from aerosols which is why we desperately need like a billion of them, the key point being protect you. It doesn't matter which side of a wall you are on, if it is concrete you won't be able to see the other side. It makes no difference which side of the N95 wall the virion particles are on--they won't get out or the won't get you. My take on this is that the the government knows everyone needs an N95, however there simply aren't near enough and so the obvious fact that this is a baseline requirement is being downplayed. I will say this clearly: everyone in America needs an N95 now and for the foreseeable future in public. That is the optimal way to proceed--because it is aerosolized, period end of story.
  - libertine 7y ago
    The best outcome is to have some development regarding N95 production, because it's not going to happen in the current scenario. I'm not from America. I'm from Europe. So you're basically saying we need tens of billion of masks worldwide... that simply won't happen. I understand that would be the optimal solution in your opinion. But some countries are showing good results with a not so optimal solution, which is surgical masks and home made masks.
    - codekilla 7y ago
      In the US we are using the Defense Production Act to make ventilators--this is good, but really we need the focus to be on N95 masks. With the current level of disinformation regarding droplet spread this isn't happening--this is the tragedy. We need the leaders of the world to realize that it really is N95 masks that are going to be the key. You can safely restart more portions of the economy with everyone wearing PPE that is of high quality and effective. The fact that this isn't priority one is mind boggling.
      - libertine 7y ago
        The problem of N95 is sourcing the plastic mesh with static charge - the major filtration portion. As odd as this my sound, but at the moment you might have a larger bottle neck in N95 production than you have on ventilators (taking into account the disposable nature of N95 masks and the sheer volume required for usage, I'm not trying to compare ventilators to N95 in terms of complexity or their production lines). Of all of this, I think an effective treatment seems to be the fastest solution (though there's none available yet), where you'd deploy treatment only to those in intensive care and ICU.

James_Henry 7y ago

Yes, this article points out that aerosols are much smaller than droplets and that health officials see this event as evidence of the aerosolization of the coronavirus. The aerosolized virus may even stay in the air for 30 minutes. It seems we all should be wearing masks in public!

libertine 7y ago

>Countries that encourage everyone to wear masks will succeed in containing this. Isn't the main reason for the success of this measure precisely to make any infected people retain droplets (big or small) inside the mask? I'm not saying it doesn't offer any protection from droplets in the air, but the main motivation was containing droplets. In this case, Choir practice it's literally a spit fest - you're singing loudly in a tightly packed large group of people. It's like the perfect scenario for spread. Even if they are in rows, you get them on your head, neck, shoulders, hands, pants, sheets of paper you're holding, even shoes. Also, if it is indeed suspended in air, then wouldn't the minimum requirement be N95 masks?

aeroevan 7y ago
>Isn't the main reason for the success of this measure precisely to make any infected people retain droplets (big or small) inside the mask? The one thing that people don't seem to think about is even if it's only effective at keeping droplets from infected people from spreading, how are all of the asymptomatic supposed to know they should wear a mask? The obvious solution is that everyone should wear a mask. I think people keep discouraging mask use due to the shortage, but if people are misinforming the public due to a shortage that's still not cool
- libertine 7y ago
  Oh most definitely - agreed 100%! Communication wise isn't straight forward, but in this case I think the masses should know it bluntly. "You could be a source of spread, so use a mask in public." Because on one side I understand that "use masks" might give a sense of false security, and stresses supply chains... but there are other ways of doing it - promote community production, even if it is rudimentary. Some countries are using prisons. I mean, there are ways around it.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I think people keep discouraging mask use due to the shortage, but if people are misinforming the public due to a shortage that's still not cool I haven't seen ant misinformation discouraging mask use. I have seen people point out: (1) it is most critical that healthcare workers have masks, (2) masks are not particularly effective for protecting the wearer, but they are very helpful for protecting others from the wearer. #2 is enough to discourage use from the selfish who are unconcerned with social consequences, #1 tends to discourage those who are concerned with social consequences, given the supply shortage.
  - freepor 7y ago
    But it's bullshit, because non-N95 masks are effective at protecting the wearer, about half as effective as N95 masks, and if "selfish" people wear masks to protect themselves they will also protect others from themselves. The authorities are feeding the public bullshit to protect mask supply, and the public isn't stupid enough to believe it, but social norms will have to change in the US quite a bit before wearing masks everywhere all time time (even with no pandemic, as is common in many parts of Asia) will become socially acceptable.
codekilla 7y ago
No--emphatically no. N95 will protect you from aerosols which is why we desperately need like a billion of them, the key point being protect you. It doesn't matter which side of a wall you are on, if it is concrete you won't be able to see the other side. It makes no difference which side of the N95 wall the virion particles are on--they won't get out or the won't get you. My take on this is that the the government knows everyone needs an N95, however there simply aren't near enough and so the obvious fact that this is a baseline requirement is being downplayed. I will say this clearly: everyone in America needs an N95 now and for the foreseeable future in public. That is the optimal way to proceed--because it is aerosolized, period end of story.
- libertine 7y ago
  The best outcome is to have some development regarding N95 production, because it's not going to happen in the current scenario. I'm not from America. I'm from Europe. So you're basically saying we need tens of billion of masks worldwide... that simply won't happen. I understand that would be the optimal solution in your opinion. But some countries are showing good results with a not so optimal solution, which is surgical masks and home made masks.
  - codekilla 7y ago
    In the US we are using the Defense Production Act to make ventilators--this is good, but really we need the focus to be on N95 masks. With the current level of disinformation regarding droplet spread this isn't happening--this is the tragedy. We need the leaders of the world to realize that it really is N95 masks that are going to be the key. You can safely restart more portions of the economy with everyone wearing PPE that is of high quality and effective. The fact that this isn't priority one is mind boggling.
    - libertine 7y ago
      The problem of N95 is sourcing the plastic mesh with static charge - the major filtration portion. As odd as this my sound, but at the moment you might have a larger bottle neck in N95 production than you have on ventilators (taking into account the disposable nature of N95 masks and the sheer volume required for usage, I'm not trying to compare ventilators to N95 in terms of complexity or their production lines). Of all of this, I think an effective treatment seems to be the fastest solution (though there's none available yet), where you'd deploy treatment only to those in intensive care and ICU.