6 ms·

The choir members did not stand next to each other. They didn't hug or shake hands and maintained at least 6 feet between each other.

vkou 7y ago
Walking 6 feet past someone has a low risk of transmitting the virus to them. Standing 6 feet away from someone for an hour... Is another story. Also worth noting: My wife has worked with a lot of community choral groups. She is convinced that they took all reasonable precautions, but doubts that their rehearsal space was sufficient to accommodate everyone standing 6 feet apart from eachother for the entire exercise... Or even for any part of it. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out what this means for the typical tech firm's open office layout.
macintux 7y ago
They mention “certain distance” which I suspect is 3-4 feet at best but frankly even 6 feet probably isn’t enough for people singing loudly in a confined environment for a long period of time.
- ping_pong 7y ago
  But it's not the same as a ski party, where people are mingling together. My entire point is that the original article downplayed how contagious it is, but even following social distancing guidelines, there was an enormously high infection rate.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    Getting into a large room with a bunch of people and singing isn't in my mind following social distancing guidelines, even if you're not as huggy as usual. Also this is self report of behavior after people did what was in retrospect a very stupid and risky activity.
usaar333 7y ago
Where did the article (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/corona...) say they maintained a 6 foot distance? If anything it suggests they were closer (foot between chairs, people weren't spread throughout the room but close to front). Regardless, doesn't matter. Singing/shouting/chanting with a high density of people inside a closed setting is dangerous for any repository disease as viral concentration just keeps building up. Same thing happened with Shincheonji on a far larger scale.
- ping_pong 7y ago
  https://sfist.com/2020/03/30/super-spreading-event-in-washington-suggests-coronavirus-is-airborne-without-coughs-or-sneezes/ https://sfist.com/2020/03/30/super-spreading-event-in-washin... "Members of the choir were already aware of the COVID-19 outbreak in their state, particularly around the Seattle area, which is about an hour south of Skagit County by car. Hand sanitizer was dispensed at the door of the practice that night in March, no one shared sheet music, and people were conscious not to stand too close to one another or engage in their huggy greetings. Also, no one remembers anyone coughing or sneezing, and no one present felt ill at the time. Nonetheless, a huge percentage of people present later tested positive for the virus." My point is that the original article said that it's hard to get infected. Assuming that everyone was asymptomatic, and there was no coughing or sneezing, and everyone stayed away from each other, it's actually not that hard to spread the infection. In fact, if there was a single person who was asymptomatic and they infected 45 people, that means it's very easy to get infected.
  - usaar333 7y ago
    I'm not sure how to interpret hard vs. easy in this context. The measures they took to protect people (not touching) has no effect on the real risk (shouting/singing in a crowded room), which again should have already been known at this point in time to be a major risk factor (Shincheonji). That is this evidence doesn't contradict Streeck arguing that formate transmission is unlikely and that it is long term exposure to breathing people that is the real risk. (Or that being in a relatively empty grocery store provides little risk) (I don't have a clue one way or the other, just commenting on applicability of evidence)
henryfjordan 7y ago
There's not some magic involved where the virus gives up after exactly 6 feet. 6 feet was chosen as a matter of policy because it was the most you could reasonably get people to stay apart. Sidewalks, store aisles, elevators, etc, are all about 6 feet wide and so it's a good number to convince people to cross the street or wait for the aisle to clear. 100 ft would be a much safer number but that's just not really physically reasonable (and so the guidance would have been dismissed by the public).
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
  And crucially, the context of the shared space makes a large difference. You simply cannot compare 6ft. outdoors with lots of ventilation vs. indoors and forced air vs. indoors and no ventilation. The choir practice should not be an example of how easy it is to spread; rather, it should be an example of the unreasonable intuitions people have about 'distance'. Remaining in close contact, indoors, while singing, for a long period of time is not a good idea. It is quite reasonable to expect that to lead to transmission. Similarly, two people passing by each other on a sidewalk, with nose breathing and mouths closed, even if it's closer than 6 ft., is a very small risk. Still good to maximize space, but nothing to get worked up about.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Singing is also likely to expel more droplets further. I don't have a source, but a microbiologist I know was saying that safe distances, based on droplet physics, depend on activity, e.g. standing in a single file line vs walking vs hiking vs running.

vkou 7y ago

Walking 6 feet past someone has a low risk of transmitting the virus to them. Standing 6 feet away from someone for an hour... Is another story. Also worth noting: My wife has worked with a lot of community choral groups. She is convinced that they took all reasonable precautions, but doubts that their rehearsal space was sufficient to accommodate everyone standing 6 feet apart from eachother for the entire exercise... Or even for any part of it. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out what this means for the typical tech firm's open office layout.

macintux 7y ago

They mention “certain distance” which I suspect is 3-4 feet at best but frankly even 6 feet probably isn’t enough for people singing loudly in a confined environment for a long period of time.

ping_pong 7y ago
But it's not the same as a ski party, where people are mingling together. My entire point is that the original article downplayed how contagious it is, but even following social distancing guidelines, there was an enormously high infection rate.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Getting into a large room with a bunch of people and singing isn't in my mind following social distancing guidelines, even if you're not as huggy as usual. Also this is self report of behavior after people did what was in retrospect a very stupid and risky activity.

usaar333 7y ago

Where did the article (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/coronavirus-choir-outbreak https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-29/corona...) say they maintained a 6 foot distance? If anything it suggests they were closer (foot between chairs, people weren't spread throughout the room but close to front). Regardless, doesn't matter. Singing/shouting/chanting with a high density of people inside a closed setting is dangerous for any repository disease as viral concentration just keeps building up. Same thing happened with Shincheonji on a far larger scale.

ping_pong 7y ago
https://sfist.com/2020/03/30/super-spreading-event-in-washington-suggests-coronavirus-is-airborne-without-coughs-or-sneezes/ https://sfist.com/2020/03/30/super-spreading-event-in-washin... "Members of the choir were already aware of the COVID-19 outbreak in their state, particularly around the Seattle area, which is about an hour south of Skagit County by car. Hand sanitizer was dispensed at the door of the practice that night in March, no one shared sheet music, and people were conscious not to stand too close to one another or engage in their huggy greetings. Also, no one remembers anyone coughing or sneezing, and no one present felt ill at the time. Nonetheless, a huge percentage of people present later tested positive for the virus." My point is that the original article said that it's hard to get infected. Assuming that everyone was asymptomatic, and there was no coughing or sneezing, and everyone stayed away from each other, it's actually not that hard to spread the infection. In fact, if there was a single person who was asymptomatic and they infected 45 people, that means it's very easy to get infected.
- usaar333 7y ago
  I'm not sure how to interpret hard vs. easy in this context. The measures they took to protect people (not touching) has no effect on the real risk (shouting/singing in a crowded room), which again should have already been known at this point in time to be a major risk factor (Shincheonji). That is this evidence doesn't contradict Streeck arguing that formate transmission is unlikely and that it is long term exposure to breathing people that is the real risk. (Or that being in a relatively empty grocery store provides little risk) (I don't have a clue one way or the other, just commenting on applicability of evidence)

henryfjordan 7y ago

There's not some magic involved where the virus gives up after exactly 6 feet. 6 feet was chosen as a matter of policy because it was the most you could reasonably get people to stay apart. Sidewalks, store aisles, elevators, etc, are all about 6 feet wide and so it's a good number to convince people to cross the street or wait for the aisle to clear. 100 ft would be a much safer number but that's just not really physically reasonable (and so the guidance would have been dismissed by the public).

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
And crucially, the context of the shared space makes a large difference. You simply cannot compare 6ft. outdoors with lots of ventilation vs. indoors and forced air vs. indoors and no ventilation. The choir practice should not be an example of how easy it is to spread; rather, it should be an example of the unreasonable intuitions people have about 'distance'. Remaining in close contact, indoors, while singing, for a long period of time is not a good idea. It is quite reasonable to expect that to lead to transmission. Similarly, two people passing by each other on a sidewalk, with nose breathing and mouths closed, even if it's closer than 6 ft., is a very small risk. Still good to maximize space, but nothing to get worked up about.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Singing is also likely to expel more droplets further. I don't have a source, but a microbiologist I know was saying that safe distances, based on droplet physics, depend on activity, e.g. standing in a single file line vs walking vs hiking vs running.