3 ms·

> The radius of distribution is smaller (6 feet) The article says that 45 people out of a group of 60, in a large room with chairs spaces at least a foot apart

> The radius of distribution is smaller (6 feet) The article says that 45 people out of a group of 60, in a large room with chairs spaces at least a foot apart and twice as many chairs as people, all became infected without any physical contact. The 6' radius limit is nonsense for this disease.

Someone 7y ago
”The 6' radius limit is nonsense for this disease.” Epidemiologists do not study individual cases; they study statistics. For that, social distancing helps in the sense that it decreases the speed at which this spreads. AFAIK, this virus needs water to survive. If so, it depends on how long droplets will survive in the air. Larger ones will fall down sooner, smaller ones will evaporate sooner (all depending on humidity and temperature) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/ says ”droplets >5 μm in diameter that fall rapidly to the ground under gravity, and therefore are transmitted only over a limited distance (e.g. ≤1 m)” and ”large droplets comprise most of the total volume of expelled respiratory droplet” So, keeping a small distance decreases the probability of infection, but doesn’t prevent it. Edit: figure C.2 in that article shows the “Wells evaporation-falling curve of droplets”, which shows that, at room temperature, a diameter of around 120 μm is the worst, time-wise. Smaller droplets evaporate sooner, larger ones fall down earlier (all assuming zero convection, I assume, something that isn’t realistic)
- jhayward 7y ago
  The studies of droplet dispersal are laboratory, not field studies. And they are imperfect models of how the virus is transmitted in the actual field. We are being given many many natural experiments. Posts like the parent here, claiming to refute and invalidate actual experience will have to eventually acknowledge reality. Otherwise it's "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" retreat to authority.

Someone 7y ago

”The 6' radius limit is nonsense for this disease.” Epidemiologists do not study individual cases; they study statistics. For that, social distancing helps in the sense that it decreases the speed at which this spreads. AFAIK, this virus needs water to survive. If so, it depends on how long droplets will survive in the air. Larger ones will fall down sooner, smaller ones will evaporate sooner (all depending on humidity and temperature) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK143281/ says ”droplets >5 μm in diameter that fall rapidly to the ground under gravity, and therefore are transmitted only over a limited distance (e.g. ≤1 m)” and ”large droplets comprise most of the total volume of expelled respiratory droplet” So, keeping a small distance decreases the probability of infection, but doesn’t prevent it. Edit: figure C.2 in that article shows the “Wells evaporation-falling curve of droplets”, which shows that, at room temperature, a diameter of around 120 μm is the worst, time-wise. Smaller droplets evaporate sooner, larger ones fall down earlier (all assuming zero convection, I assume, something that isn’t realistic)

jhayward 7y ago
The studies of droplet dispersal are laboratory, not field studies. And they are imperfect models of how the virus is transmitted in the actual field. We are being given many many natural experiments. Posts like the parent here, claiming to refute and invalidate actual experience will have to eventually acknowledge reality. Otherwise it's "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" retreat to authority.