3 ms·
Sorry but this sounds like junk science. Nurses and doctors work in close proximity to people who are sick. So 50 cm compared to 2 meters. This is why their v
by aaron695 7y ago
Sorry but this sounds like junk science.
Nurses and doctors work in close proximity to people who are sick. So 50 cm compared to 2 meters.
This is why their viral load would be more.
Given a default R of 2 to 2.5 what model are you implying makes this worse in terms of viral load given a reduced R? How would this work?
This bit need explaining because it sounds like you are implying with a R of 2 to 2.5 then the average person might get a higher viral load than if R was .9 lets say.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y agoLets say you have 20 people im a room and one of them has a mild. Now you have up to 20 mild cases. If 20 people spend a day in a room and 10 of them have mild cases maybe you now have 10 mild and up to 10 severe cases. In order to be in a situation with many mild or pre-symptomatic cases in the same room the disease must spread fast through society.
- aaron695 7y agoI don't think a room would have 10 people with mild cases. So this needs to be modelled realistically. I think there's a small chance one person in the room has it for R0 = 2.5 compared with a not quite as small chance one person in the room has it for a lesser R. Also I also don't think being in a room with multiple people effects load. I think it's distance. A cough from a person within 50cm is far far worse than 2 people breathing. So this is my junk science claim, this needs to be backed with numbers. It's not logical R effects load exposure to me, where is this evidence from? Else this is dangerous information, exactly the same as saying it's just the flu.