3 ms·

> 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 upp

> 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.
xsmasher 6y ago
You don't seem to be engaging with the "airborne on droplets" vs "airborne aerosol" vs "airborne on dust" discussion that spawned this subthread.

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.

xsmasher 6y ago

You don't seem to be engaging with the "airborne on droplets" vs "airborne aerosol" vs "airborne on dust" discussion that spawned this subthread.