3 ms·
To be fair, they were simulating an airtight room with zero movement. Even just people walking around would create some airflow -- an HVAC would create both ai
by vanniv 7y ago
To be fair, they were simulating an airtight room with zero movement.
Even just people walking around would create some airflow -- an HVAC would create both airflow and temperature gradient.
Blowing the droplets away is effective, but also blowing them in to either each other or a surface is also effective.
Evaporation also occurs -- the smallest droplets likely would evaporate long before this model shows them hitting the ground or dissipating.
To your final point, I direct you to the hygiene hypothesis -- you definitely want to periodically encounter low levels of non-lethal pathogens.
Yeah, people should take reasonable precautions when they are sick, and you should wash your hands whenever they're dirty or before you eat/stick your fingers in your nose (or at least 5x per day just on general principle), but we shouldn't stop having human social contact, and you shouldn't live in a Cleanroom.
- keenmaster 7y agoSure, we shouldn’t be extra paranoid and literally live in a clean room. Yes, the simulated room had zero circulation, which is unrealistic. However, the point stands that micro-droplets linger far more than you’d think. We should find ways to systematically improve the health of the population. Guidelines to cough into our elbows just don’t cut it. Flu vaccines are great but they’re not enough and they’re not universal. My logic for subsidizing good HVAC also applies to other pathogen mitigation technologies. No-touch sinks in public areas are one example.