4 ms·

My understanding is that the six foot distance is based on the expected air speed of a cough/sneeze and distribution of droplet sizes in a cough/sneeze. Given t

My understanding is that the six foot distance is based on the expected air speed of a cough/sneeze and distribution of droplet sizes in a cough/sneeze. Given these two factors you can calculate how far droplets are expected to travel from a cough before hitting the ground.

chrisco255 6y ago
When a person stands in a checkout line and breathes into the air and all over the plexiglass that stands between you and the cashier...and you carefully stand 6 feet back and then walk into the same exact airspace the person occupied just seconds prior...believe me, you're breathing in droplets from that other person. Our bodies contract diseases all day every day. There are millions of viruses and bacteria that but for our immune system, would bring us to our knees in a matter of days or weeks. We cannot carry on like this. Social distancing will tear society apart and destroy the economy, resulting in far more deaths and misery.
- victorhooi 6y ago
  Well, it seems to have worked out well for some of the Asian countries (and countries like Australia/NZ) which have gotten COVID-19 under control. The US still ha a major problem with deaths in the tens of thousands, as do many of the European countries. I take your point that there will be economic paint - but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic about "tearing society apart" and "resulting in far more deaths and misery". This is the sort of rhetoric that Trump has been using - whilst I agree in principle there is economic pain - please don't treat people's lives as meaningless, or that the almighty dollar is all that matters. It's the job of governments to guide the country through these crises - this is where government stimulus and spending should be used - not just letting people die needlessly. COVID-19 is a new and novel disease that's highly spreadable, has no known vaccine, and is killing an unprecedented number of people. And we're not just talking about yourself - perhaps you're young/healthy and are prepared to contract COVID-19 and roll the dice. However, those around you - family, or friends - may not be so lucky, or it could be a potentially life-threatening condition. Please think about people around you. The US death toll is nearly 100,000.... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-24/coronavirus-update-covid19-may-24-new-york-times-memorial-day/12280350 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-24/coronavirus-update-co... That is absolutely heartbreaking. That is over 30x the death toll from the 9/11 plane attacks - and look what lengths the government went to combat that? I just got my second COVID-19 test (fortunately came back negative) - my parents (who are older and vulnerable) are paranoid I'll give it to them. So when I got a sore throat, I went to get the test. And a few weeks back, my son had a cough, so I got myself tested. Our government (Australia) is encouraging people with any symptoms to get tested - and I think that's a good thing, towards eradicating this illness.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> and is killing an unprecedented number of people. Black death. Bubonic plague. Smallpox. Malaria. Measles. Polio. There have been many more virulent and many more destructive diseases than this one. Malaria in particular has been so destructive over thousands of years that it has modified human populations, forcing observable natural selection for traits such as sickle-cell anemia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria
    - 8note 6y ago
      Those aren't killing people in rich countries with good healthcare and sanitation though
    - victorhooi 6y ago
      You're correct that historically, there have been other illnesses hundreds of years ago that killed more people. And in many developing countries, there are tragically many deaths caused by poor sanitation or healthcare. However, this is a disease that has - even with incredibly draconian lockdowns and a global effort from every country to combat it - tragically killed nearly 350,000 people in a matter of months. And this is often in countries with state of the art healthcare systems, and every effort made to keep those people alive. And as another commenter pointed out, this is often in countries not used to such scale of health disasters, as they have healthcare and good sanitation. Ironically, I read that things like air travel and holidays actually worsened illnesses like this. Imagine if we'd simply let the diseases run its course. The thing that baffles me is the US - advanced Western nation - with a death toll of nearly 100,000 people. How is that even possible? I am hoping we've seen the worst of it.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Nursing home outbreaks are a huge chunk of those deaths.
      - robotresearcher 6y ago
        > historically, there have been other illnesses hundreds of years ago that killed more people. AIDS has killed around 34 million people since 1981.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  Or the one that makes me laugh is the sterilization of the credit card keypad versus the handling of cash without sterilization.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    I don't see what's funny about that. If you have some measures that are feasible and at least somewhat helpful (wiping the keypad, encouraging people to use contactless payment instead of cash) and some measures that are infeasible (sanitizing cash), obviously you do the feasible stuff and not the infeasible stuff.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      It's hypocritical. Much like the medical advice pandered by the media.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  That argument only works if everyone caught the disease if they were exposed to even a single infected droplet. In fact, infection is highly non linear: below a certain concentration, the probability of infection is practically zero. That's because if you're exposed to a very small amount of the virus then most people's immune systems can fight it off immediately without "catching" the disease. If you walk into the space previously breathed in by an infected person (or even if you just stand a couple of metres away from them) you will still indeed be breathing some infected droplets, but far less than if you stood closer to them. The result is not just that you chance of being infected is less, but that it is disproportionately less. This is born out in the observed consequences of social distancing in many countries. It's pointless to dispute it. Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I suspect that this isn't really the point of your comment or the main reason for your view. I suspect that you think social distancing is a bad policy even if it does prevent infection. So I suggest against tacking on "oh and by the way it doesn't really prevent infection anyway", which is obviously not true; you're only weakening your credibility which undermines your main point.

chrisco255 6y ago

When a person stands in a checkout line and breathes into the air and all over the plexiglass that stands between you and the cashier...and you carefully stand 6 feet back and then walk into the same exact airspace the person occupied just seconds prior...believe me, you're breathing in droplets from that other person. Our bodies contract diseases all day every day. There are millions of viruses and bacteria that but for our immune system, would bring us to our knees in a matter of days or weeks. We cannot carry on like this. Social distancing will tear society apart and destroy the economy, resulting in far more deaths and misery.

victorhooi 6y ago
Well, it seems to have worked out well for some of the Asian countries (and countries like Australia/NZ) which have gotten COVID-19 under control. The US still ha a major problem with deaths in the tens of thousands, as do many of the European countries. I take your point that there will be economic paint - but I think you're being a bit hyperbolic about "tearing society apart" and "resulting in far more deaths and misery". This is the sort of rhetoric that Trump has been using - whilst I agree in principle there is economic pain - please don't treat people's lives as meaningless, or that the almighty dollar is all that matters. It's the job of governments to guide the country through these crises - this is where government stimulus and spending should be used - not just letting people die needlessly. COVID-19 is a new and novel disease that's highly spreadable, has no known vaccine, and is killing an unprecedented number of people. And we're not just talking about yourself - perhaps you're young/healthy and are prepared to contract COVID-19 and roll the dice. However, those around you - family, or friends - may not be so lucky, or it could be a potentially life-threatening condition. Please think about people around you. The US death toll is nearly 100,000.... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-24/coronavirus-update-covid19-may-24-new-york-times-memorial-day/12280350 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-24/coronavirus-update-co... That is absolutely heartbreaking. That is over 30x the death toll from the 9/11 plane attacks - and look what lengths the government went to combat that? I just got my second COVID-19 test (fortunately came back negative) - my parents (who are older and vulnerable) are paranoid I'll give it to them. So when I got a sore throat, I went to get the test. And a few weeks back, my son had a cough, so I got myself tested. Our government (Australia) is encouraging people with any symptoms to get tested - and I think that's a good thing, towards eradicating this illness.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> and is killing an unprecedented number of people. Black death. Bubonic plague. Smallpox. Malaria. Measles. Polio. There have been many more virulent and many more destructive diseases than this one. Malaria in particular has been so destructive over thousands of years that it has modified human populations, forcing observable natural selection for traits such as sickle-cell anemia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_malaria
  - 8note 6y ago
    Those aren't killing people in rich countries with good healthcare and sanitation though
  - victorhooi 6y ago
    You're correct that historically, there have been other illnesses hundreds of years ago that killed more people. And in many developing countries, there are tragically many deaths caused by poor sanitation or healthcare. However, this is a disease that has - even with incredibly draconian lockdowns and a global effort from every country to combat it - tragically killed nearly 350,000 people in a matter of months. And this is often in countries with state of the art healthcare systems, and every effort made to keep those people alive. And as another commenter pointed out, this is often in countries not used to such scale of health disasters, as they have healthcare and good sanitation. Ironically, I read that things like air travel and holidays actually worsened illnesses like this. Imagine if we'd simply let the diseases run its course. The thing that baffles me is the US - advanced Western nation - with a death toll of nearly 100,000 people. How is that even possible? I am hoping we've seen the worst of it.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Nursing home outbreaks are a huge chunk of those deaths.
    - robotresearcher 6y ago
      > historically, there have been other illnesses hundreds of years ago that killed more people. AIDS has killed around 34 million people since 1981.
Fjolsvith 6y ago
Or the one that makes me laugh is the sterilization of the credit card keypad versus the handling of cash without sterilization.
- majewsky 6y ago
  I don't see what's funny about that. If you have some measures that are feasible and at least somewhat helpful (wiping the keypad, encouraging people to use contactless payment instead of cash) and some measures that are infeasible (sanitizing cash), obviously you do the feasible stuff and not the infeasible stuff.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    It's hypocritical. Much like the medical advice pandered by the media.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
quietbritishjim 6y ago
That argument only works if everyone caught the disease if they were exposed to even a single infected droplet. In fact, infection is highly non linear: below a certain concentration, the probability of infection is practically zero. That's because if you're exposed to a very small amount of the virus then most people's immune systems can fight it off immediately without "catching" the disease. If you walk into the space previously breathed in by an infected person (or even if you just stand a couple of metres away from them) you will still indeed be breathing some infected droplets, but far less than if you stood closer to them. The result is not just that you chance of being infected is less, but that it is disproportionately less. This is born out in the observed consequences of social distancing in many countries. It's pointless to dispute it. Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I suspect that this isn't really the point of your comment or the main reason for your view. I suspect that you think social distancing is a bad policy even if it does prevent infection. So I suggest against tacking on "oh and by the way it doesn't really prevent infection anyway", which is obviously not true; you're only weakening your credibility which undermines your main point.