5 ms·

Air is completely renewed in airliner cabins... but this brings up a more important question of whether any of this lockdown / social distancing even works. I'

Air is completely renewed in airliner cabins... but this brings up a more important question of whether any of this lockdown / social distancing even works. I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective. We breathe the same air, touch the same services, and overall interact way too much for any of this to really work against something that's supposed to be so contagious.

jobigoud 7y ago
> I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective How do you explain the reduction in cases and deaths in Italy, Spain, France, NY?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
andybak 7y ago
> but this brings up a more important question of whether any of this lockdown / social distancing even works. > I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective. We breathe the same air, touch the same services, and overall interact way too much for any of this to really work against something that's supposed to be so contagious. This makes no sense. Lockdown/distancing is about reducing how much we're "breathing the same air, touching the same surfaces" I've managed to avoid touching the same surfaces as a non-household member for 5 weeks or so and I'm pretty sure none of the air I've breathed has come from anywhere within 2m of anyone else. And even if it had it's all about probabilities. I've massively reduced the chance of contagion. I'm just rolling those dice a lot less often.
- manigandham 7y ago
  People are still going to work and coming back to their communities, including healthcare workers who are highly exposed. People are still going shopping, touching the same products while bringing them home. People are still getting deliveries of food and packages that have passed countless hands and surfaces. People are still walking around neighborhoods, touching gates, benches, doors, signs, tables, cars, mailboxes, etc. While I don't doubt your efforts, I do doubt how effective they are. I'm not sure why such a question is so controversial. People are messy, and we vastly underestimate our interactions with the world. EDIT: I'm reminded of the mythbusters episode about virus spread which shows just how messy we are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQ9Kl9CqUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQ9Kl9CqUU
magicalhippo 7y ago
> I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective. Norway has used lockdown and social distancing as the primary tool to fight COVID-19. On March the 12th we entered lockdown[1]. You can see the results on this page[2], where we clearly peaked at the end of March. In the capital, certain groups are disproportionally infected by the virus[3]. In particular immigrants which does not understand Norwegian very well and come from cultures where visiting people, especially sick ones, is socially important. These people are far less likely to have read about and understood the importance of social distancing, as information in their native language was lacking in the early stages[4]. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/na-stenger-norge-1.14941623 https://www.nrk.no/norge/na-stenger-norge-1.14941623 [2]: https://www.nrk.no/korona/status/ https://www.nrk.no/korona/status/ [3]: https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/status-koronasmitte-onsdag-1.-april-2020/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/status-koronasmitte-onsdag-1... [4]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/smittevernoverlege-i-oslo_-_-meir-ny-smitte-i-bydelar-med-mange-innvandrarar-1.14968771 https://www.nrk.no/norge/smittevernoverlege-i-oslo_-_-meir-n...
- tallanvor 7y ago
  > In the capital, certain groups are disproportionally infected by the virus[3]. In particular immigrants which does not understand Norwegian very well and come from cultures where visiting people, especially sick ones, is socially important. It's pretty disingenuous to say this when the link only lists one group that they felt the need to make specific outreach to. Your link states that in general they are not seeing over-representation from people born outside of Norway. Norway has also tested less than 3.7% of it's residents - we know they've done less than 200k tests, and we don't know how many people have been tested more than once, so it may be significantly less, so we really don't know how many people have had the virus or still have it.
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    > Your link states that in general they are not seeing over-representation from people born outside of Norway. Was a bit hasty with my attribution. See my [4] for more relevant quotes.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
It works (in general, not sure about an airliner) because the virus does not travel in air. It travels only in small droplets of liquid, which can travel in air, but only for short distances. On long distances those droplets just fall to the ground/surfaces. There are still precautions to take especially when touching surfaces, because the fallen droplets can then transfer onto the skin, and then later into the lungs when we touch our mouth, nose or eyes. But social distancing absolutely works in order to prevent the primary transfer of droplets from face to face through the air.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Sure but we expel liquid just by breathing and talking. The masks most people are using aren't real filtration and far less people are wearing gloves.
pjc50 7y ago
> We breathe the same air, touch the same services, and overall interact way too much That is not a lockdown. I haven't left my house for two weeks apart from a few small excursions where I stayed at least two meters away from everyone, while wearing a cloth mask. That is a lockdown.
- manigandham 7y ago
  If you left your house then you weren’t locked down. Point being that unless you walked around in a hazmat suit, you were probably exposed regardless.
- standardUser 7y ago
  The phrases "lockdown" and "quarantine" are being abused, though not as badly as the horribly misused term "shelter in place". But I think we all realize that in the common vernacular of the last few months, these terms all mean you stay home most of the time, except for essential trips and jobs. They do not automatically imply never leaving the house since the vast, vast majority of people do leave their homes periodically, except for the most severe lockdowns in a select few locations. Not coming within two meters of someone outside of your household for two weeks straight is an exception, not the norm. Most people at least go to the store, but by all current definitions those people are still adhering to "lockdowns" or whatever you want to call them.
toss1 7y ago
The lockdown measures can be shown to have very clear effects merely by looking at the data. I've tracked data directly from John's Hopkins & state dept of health websites, and just off the top of my head without looking at the spreadsheet can say that the growth rate massively (tho insufficiently) is reduced by the lockdown. Without lockdown, the daily increases in cases & deaths showed a doubling rate of every 3-4 days, sometimes faster. This is also what was reported in Italy earlier in the crisis. Now, the doubling days in the locked down areas consistently exceeds 25 dsys. This is not subtle, it is blatantly empirically obvious in the data. No need for theorizing. I mention that the lockdown may be insufficient, or insufficiently implemented because the growth factor is still on a plateau generally exceeding 1.0,which means that we still have a net spreading, or positive growth rate, i.e., it is not yet being extinguished, only slowed. So we will need to do more. From looking at other results, that will involve ubiquitous masks, glasses, gloves ang overwhelming program of testing, tracking, & targeted isolation. Meanwhile, another MIT study (iirc) showed the effects of minor lockdown violations. With full isolation the societal exposure is limited to the essentworkets and their families, about 26% of the population. But if only one household member goes visiting others, the societal exposure increases to 90%++. Just a little casual 'it's no big deal' attitude screws up the whole thing. Stay well out there, folks.
- manigandham 7y ago
  My point is that the US never approached anywhere near the level of isolated lockdown/quarantine of China, and the protections get weaker by the day as people get tired, lazy, and complacent. It seems like the virus has already spread greatly, as confirmed by new rounds of testing showing far more infections while the death rate is stabilizing.
  - toss1 7y ago
    Agree that the US is doing a half-baked lockdown (being generous), inconsistently, and is opening up far too soon. However, looking at the data, the death rate is only increasing; recent weekly series starting 06-April is: 3.0%, 4.1%, 5.4%, 5.7%, to 5.8% yesterday. This is actually low, since today's case count is the wrong denominator, as it has a certain amount of deaths built-in but not counted and this is still in a growth phase. Using [deaths]/[cases_on_day_-7] produces the most consistent numbers for a death rate of about 7.1%. Neither the changes in contagion rate nor death rate, even with the half-baked lockdowns, even approximate support for your contention that lockdowns do not work. They in fact support the opposite conclusion, even half-baked measures reduce the spread, and better measures would be better. The best are proper full testing coverage, tracking, and targeted isolation, as implemented well by South Korea. As to your contention about the contagiousness, it is known that it is not nearly contagious as, say Measles, but is more contagious than Flu.
ulfw 7y ago
And literally every data from every country that has been on lockdown proves you wrong.
- manigandham 7y ago
  That data looks pretty much the same as from areas without lockdown/SIP/quarantines. Is there a clear outlier you can point to?

jobigoud 7y ago

> I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective How do you explain the reduction in cases and deaths in Italy, Spain, France, NY?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

andybak 7y ago

> but this brings up a more important question of whether any of this lockdown / social distancing even works. > I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective. We breathe the same air, touch the same services, and overall interact way too much for any of this to really work against something that's supposed to be so contagious. This makes no sense. Lockdown/distancing is about reducing how much we're "breathing the same air, touching the same surfaces" I've managed to avoid touching the same surfaces as a non-household member for 5 weeks or so and I'm pretty sure none of the air I've breathed has come from anywhere within 2m of anyone else. And even if it had it's all about probabilities. I've massively reduced the chance of contagion. I'm just rolling those dice a lot less often.

manigandham 7y ago
People are still going to work and coming back to their communities, including healthcare workers who are highly exposed. People are still going shopping, touching the same products while bringing them home. People are still getting deliveries of food and packages that have passed countless hands and surfaces. People are still walking around neighborhoods, touching gates, benches, doors, signs, tables, cars, mailboxes, etc. While I don't doubt your efforts, I do doubt how effective they are. I'm not sure why such a question is so controversial. People are messy, and we vastly underestimate our interactions with the world. EDIT: I'm reminded of the mythbusters episode about virus spread which shows just how messy we are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQ9Kl9CqUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbQ9Kl9CqUU

magicalhippo 7y ago

> I'm 99% sure it's completely ineffective. Norway has used lockdown and social distancing as the primary tool to fight COVID-19. On March the 12th we entered lockdown[1]. You can see the results on this page[2], where we clearly peaked at the end of March. In the capital, certain groups are disproportionally infected by the virus[3]. In particular immigrants which does not understand Norwegian very well and come from cultures where visiting people, especially sick ones, is socially important. These people are far less likely to have read about and understood the importance of social distancing, as information in their native language was lacking in the early stages[4]. [1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/na-stenger-norge-1.14941623 https://www.nrk.no/norge/na-stenger-norge-1.14941623 [2]: https://www.nrk.no/korona/status/ https://www.nrk.no/korona/status/ [3]: https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/status-koronasmitte-onsdag-1.-april-2020/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/status-koronasmitte-onsdag-1... [4]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/smittevernoverlege-i-oslo_-_-meir-ny-smitte-i-bydelar-med-mange-innvandrarar-1.14968771 https://www.nrk.no/norge/smittevernoverlege-i-oslo_-_-meir-n...

tallanvor 7y ago
> In the capital, certain groups are disproportionally infected by the virus[3]. In particular immigrants which does not understand Norwegian very well and come from cultures where visiting people, especially sick ones, is socially important. It's pretty disingenuous to say this when the link only lists one group that they felt the need to make specific outreach to. Your link states that in general they are not seeing over-representation from people born outside of Norway. Norway has also tested less than 3.7% of it's residents - we know they've done less than 200k tests, and we don't know how many people have been tested more than once, so it may be significantly less, so we really don't know how many people have had the virus or still have it.
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  > Your link states that in general they are not seeing over-representation from people born outside of Norway. Was a bit hasty with my attribution. See my [4] for more relevant quotes.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

It works (in general, not sure about an airliner) because the virus does not travel in air. It travels only in small droplets of liquid, which can travel in air, but only for short distances. On long distances those droplets just fall to the ground/surfaces. There are still precautions to take especially when touching surfaces, because the fallen droplets can then transfer onto the skin, and then later into the lungs when we touch our mouth, nose or eyes. But social distancing absolutely works in order to prevent the primary transfer of droplets from face to face through the air.

manigandham 7y ago
Sure but we expel liquid just by breathing and talking. The masks most people are using aren't real filtration and far less people are wearing gloves.

pjc50 7y ago

> We breathe the same air, touch the same services, and overall interact way too much That is not a lockdown. I haven't left my house for two weeks apart from a few small excursions where I stayed at least two meters away from everyone, while wearing a cloth mask. That is a lockdown.

manigandham 7y ago
If you left your house then you weren’t locked down. Point being that unless you walked around in a hazmat suit, you were probably exposed regardless.
standardUser 7y ago
The phrases "lockdown" and "quarantine" are being abused, though not as badly as the horribly misused term "shelter in place". But I think we all realize that in the common vernacular of the last few months, these terms all mean you stay home most of the time, except for essential trips and jobs. They do not automatically imply never leaving the house since the vast, vast majority of people do leave their homes periodically, except for the most severe lockdowns in a select few locations. Not coming within two meters of someone outside of your household for two weeks straight is an exception, not the norm. Most people at least go to the store, but by all current definitions those people are still adhering to "lockdowns" or whatever you want to call them.

toss1 7y ago

The lockdown measures can be shown to have very clear effects merely by looking at the data. I've tracked data directly from John's Hopkins & state dept of health websites, and just off the top of my head without looking at the spreadsheet can say that the growth rate massively (tho insufficiently) is reduced by the lockdown. Without lockdown, the daily increases in cases & deaths showed a doubling rate of every 3-4 days, sometimes faster. This is also what was reported in Italy earlier in the crisis. Now, the doubling days in the locked down areas consistently exceeds 25 dsys. This is not subtle, it is blatantly empirically obvious in the data. No need for theorizing. I mention that the lockdown may be insufficient, or insufficiently implemented because the growth factor is still on a plateau generally exceeding 1.0,which means that we still have a net spreading, or positive growth rate, i.e., it is not yet being extinguished, only slowed. So we will need to do more. From looking at other results, that will involve ubiquitous masks, glasses, gloves ang overwhelming program of testing, tracking, & targeted isolation. Meanwhile, another MIT study (iirc) showed the effects of minor lockdown violations. With full isolation the societal exposure is limited to the essentworkets and their families, about 26% of the population. But if only one household member goes visiting others, the societal exposure increases to 90%++. Just a little casual 'it's no big deal' attitude screws up the whole thing. Stay well out there, folks.

manigandham 7y ago
My point is that the US never approached anywhere near the level of isolated lockdown/quarantine of China, and the protections get weaker by the day as people get tired, lazy, and complacent. It seems like the virus has already spread greatly, as confirmed by new rounds of testing showing far more infections while the death rate is stabilizing.
- toss1 7y ago
  Agree that the US is doing a half-baked lockdown (being generous), inconsistently, and is opening up far too soon. However, looking at the data, the death rate is only increasing; recent weekly series starting 06-April is: 3.0%, 4.1%, 5.4%, 5.7%, to 5.8% yesterday. This is actually low, since today's case count is the wrong denominator, as it has a certain amount of deaths built-in but not counted and this is still in a growth phase. Using [deaths]/[cases_on_day_-7] produces the most consistent numbers for a death rate of about 7.1%. Neither the changes in contagion rate nor death rate, even with the half-baked lockdowns, even approximate support for your contention that lockdowns do not work. They in fact support the opposite conclusion, even half-baked measures reduce the spread, and better measures would be better. The best are proper full testing coverage, tracking, and targeted isolation, as implemented well by South Korea. As to your contention about the contagiousness, it is known that it is not nearly contagious as, say Measles, but is more contagious than Flu.

ulfw 7y ago

And literally every data from every country that has been on lockdown proves you wrong.

manigandham 7y ago
That data looks pretty much the same as from areas without lockdown/SIP/quarantines. Is there a clear outlier you can point to?