4 ms·

If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't, then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected. The levels of people getting infected, and s

If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't, then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected. The levels of people getting infected, and subsequently getting hospitalized would be far worse than the worst scenes we saw in Italy and NYC. Lockdowns absolutely would have been mandatory for months upon months. Coronavirus is not by itself a tremendously deadly disease. The problem is how infectious it is, and how quickly it can overrun a limited hospital system. Even at a sub-10% hospitalization rate for people younger than 60, we are seeing many hospitals getting full. It being truly airborne would make things worse by many orders of magnitude. The way coronavirus spreads is basically the same mechanism as the flu and the cold, yet the levels of people getting infected are much much worse. Imagine if simply walking through a room could get you infected. The spread would be undeniably worse than anything we had every seen before. Even stores like Costco and all factories would have to shut down. So yes, very strict lockdowns would need to be in place. Thank goodness it's not.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Um.. it is airborne, that is why there are multiple super-spreader events that can’t be explained by someone interacting within 3-6 feet for 10 minutes. (e.g. cases of 1 to 100, 1:500 case reported as well). If you walked into an empty hospital room that was just used with high air-virion density, you could get infected, that is why they decontaminate with the equipment you see. I think the main reason this isn’t being communicated is because we will never have enough N95 masks to mitigate this (would need 5-10 years of 24/6 production to fill govt. stockpiles).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- guscost 6y ago
  I would bet that you are right, but it is still a controversial opinion, and droplet transmission is probably still a major factor. Plenty of research supports the claim, although some studies conclude that it is only significant when the spreader has a high viral load: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768712 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155572v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155572v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153049v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153049v...
- sgt101 6y ago
  Ok - these multiple superspreader events... do you mean 100's or 10's or a few? And when you say "can't be explained " really? Can you provide some back up to this information?
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768712 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.vox.com/21296067/coronavirus-covid-symptoms-superspreaders-superspreading-contagious-bars-restaurants https://www.vox.com/21296067/coronavirus-covid-symptoms-supe... (put the air purifiers in the bathroom it seems...)
clairity 6y ago
thanks for continuing to tease out the nuance. nearly all coverage and discussion of covid is an exercise in frustration, one way or the other. the unrealistic desire for riskless, surefire mitigations had led us exactly into the ping-ponging uncertainty that such longing tries so strenuously to avoid. it's wreaking havoc on our social and economic lives, let alone politically. taking into account what we know so far, the best bang-for-buck rule is still "distance (inside), and when you can't, mask.", not shutdown, or mask outside and all the time, or never mask or distance, or business as usual, or wipe down surfaces incessantly, or reconfigure every hvac system. the simplicity of that one rule belies a lot of understanding packed into it, unfortunately, leading to an unnecessary yearning for more. there isn't more that we ordinary folks can do than that. that's not to say don't be cognizant of the progress we're making, but does suggest we need to stop fretting while we wait for more effective treatments, herd immunity, and/or a vaccine.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't why do you say this? The article is saying otherwise, quite literally "The coronavirus reproduces in our upper and lower respiratory tracts, and is emitted when we breathe, talk, sing, cough, or sneeze" > then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected You're presuming it has to be empty. If you walked through a full room without touching anyone or anything and you caught covid, would you accept that it is airborne? Or are you saying that is impossible? Do I misunderstand you?
- jennyyang 6y ago
  Yes you are misunderstanding me.
- rtx 6y ago
  That's where the six feet distance part comes in.
- prox 6y ago
  It’s because it seems to be mostly ballistic droplets, except for a (small?) percentage were it is not. This is also stated in text for measles (that spreads throughout a house) which Corona seems to not do.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    From the article, that's exactly what's being questioned: "There is a big dispute in the scientific community, however, about both the size and the behavior of these particles, and the resolution of that question would change many recommendations about staying safe. Many scientists believe that the virus is emitted from our mouths also in much smaller particles, which are infectious but also tiny enough that they can remain suspended in the air, float around, be pushed by air currents, and accumulate in enclosed spaces"
    - prox 6y ago
      Yes but, and this is the important part : not as potent as for instance measles (which spreads and infects 90%) Or we’d see far more indoor cases. And we do see in events with lots of expiration, where there is singing for example, very potent transmission.
hcurtiss 6y ago
>Even stores like Costco and all factories would have to shut down. That would kill a lot of people too. It's not obvious to me which would be worse, particularly in the face of such a low IFR.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
WTF is going on here? You claim "If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't" yet provide no evidence. But looking at you history you have provided exactly evidence that it is airborne "Video showing microdroplets suspending in air (vimeo.com)" a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776194) And to quote from another commenter "The part showing how a single cough can create a room-wide cloud of virus that lingers for 20+ minutes in spaces with poor circulation was especially enlightening." Having watched the vid I can confirm that's what they show, at least as a simulation. Even the main article says (I'm re-quoting from another of my posts): "There is a big dispute in the scientific community, however, about both the size and the behavior of these particles, and the resolution of that question would change many recommendations about staying safe. Many scientists believe that the virus is emitted from our mouths also in much smaller particles, which are infectious but also tiny enough that they can remain suspended in the air, float around, be pushed by air currents, and accumulate in enclosed spaces" which directly opposes what you say. How is your parent post not either plain wrong or deliberately sowing confusion? I'm flagging you.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Um.. it is airborne, that is why there are multiple super-spreader events that can’t be explained by someone interacting within 3-6 feet for 10 minutes. (e.g. cases of 1 to 100, 1:500 case reported as well). If you walked into an empty hospital room that was just used with high air-virion density, you could get infected, that is why they decontaminate with the equipment you see. I think the main reason this isn’t being communicated is because we will never have enough N95 masks to mitigate this (would need 5-10 years of 24/6 production to fill govt. stockpiles).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
guscost 6y ago
I would bet that you are right, but it is still a controversial opinion, and droplet transmission is probably still a major factor. Plenty of research supports the claim, although some studies conclude that it is only significant when the spreader has a high viral load: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768712 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155572v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155572v... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153049v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.13.20153049v...
sgt101 6y ago
Ok - these multiple superspreader events... do you mean 100's or 10's or a few? And when you say "can't be explained " really? Can you provide some back up to this information?
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2768712 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... https://www.vox.com/21296067/coronavirus-covid-symptoms-superspreaders-superspreading-contagious-bars-restaurants https://www.vox.com/21296067/coronavirus-covid-symptoms-supe... (put the air purifiers in the bathroom it seems...)

clairity 6y ago

thanks for continuing to tease out the nuance. nearly all coverage and discussion of covid is an exercise in frustration, one way or the other. the unrealistic desire for riskless, surefire mitigations had led us exactly into the ping-ponging uncertainty that such longing tries so strenuously to avoid. it's wreaking havoc on our social and economic lives, let alone politically. taking into account what we know so far, the best bang-for-buck rule is still "distance (inside), and when you can't, mask.", not shutdown, or mask outside and all the time, or never mask or distance, or business as usual, or wipe down surfaces incessantly, or reconfigure every hvac system. the simplicity of that one rule belies a lot of understanding packed into it, unfortunately, leading to an unnecessary yearning for more. there isn't more that we ordinary folks can do than that. that's not to say don't be cognizant of the progress we're making, but does suggest we need to stop fretting while we wait for more effective treatments, herd immunity, and/or a vaccine.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't why do you say this? The article is saying otherwise, quite literally "The coronavirus reproduces in our upper and lower respiratory tracts, and is emitted when we breathe, talk, sing, cough, or sneeze" > then simply walking through an empty room could get you infected You're presuming it has to be empty. If you walked through a full room without touching anyone or anything and you caught covid, would you accept that it is airborne? Or are you saying that is impossible? Do I misunderstand you?

jennyyang 6y ago
Yes you are misunderstanding me.
rtx 6y ago
That's where the six feet distance part comes in.
prox 6y ago
It’s because it seems to be mostly ballistic droplets, except for a (small?) percentage were it is not. This is also stated in text for measles (that spreads throughout a house) which Corona seems to not do.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  From the article, that's exactly what's being questioned: "There is a big dispute in the scientific community, however, about both the size and the behavior of these particles, and the resolution of that question would change many recommendations about staying safe. Many scientists believe that the virus is emitted from our mouths also in much smaller particles, which are infectious but also tiny enough that they can remain suspended in the air, float around, be pushed by air currents, and accumulate in enclosed spaces"
  - prox 6y ago
    Yes but, and this is the important part : not as potent as for instance measles (which spreads and infects 90%) Or we’d see far more indoor cases. And we do see in events with lots of expiration, where there is singing for example, very potent transmission.

hcurtiss 6y ago

>Even stores like Costco and all factories would have to shut down. That would kill a lot of people too. It's not obvious to me which would be worse, particularly in the face of such a low IFR.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

WTF is going on here? You claim "If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't" yet provide no evidence. But looking at you history you have provided exactly evidence that it is airborne "Video showing microdroplets suspending in air (vimeo.com)" a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776194) And to quote from another commenter "The part showing how a single cough can create a room-wide cloud of virus that lingers for 20+ minutes in spaces with poor circulation was especially enlightening." Having watched the vid I can confirm that's what they show, at least as a simulation. Even the main article says (I'm re-quoting from another of my posts): "There is a big dispute in the scientific community, however, about both the size and the behavior of these particles, and the resolution of that question would change many recommendations about staying safe. Many scientists believe that the virus is emitted from our mouths also in much smaller particles, which are infectious but also tiny enough that they can remain suspended in the air, float around, be pushed by air currents, and accumulate in enclosed spaces" which directly opposes what you say. How is your parent post not either plain wrong or deliberately sowing confusion? I'm flagging you.