4 ms·

> "It's also a bummer to see basic CDC guidelines still not mentioning adequate ventilation, which helps far more than masks do..." this is somewhat true, but

> "It's also a bummer to see basic CDC guidelines still not mentioning adequate ventilation, which helps far more than masks do..." this is somewhat true, but note that adequate ventilation only need be passive, though many will erroneously interpret that as active filtration (e.g., hepa hvac). that's the same sort of logical mistake people make with masks. active filtration helps on the margin, but is not a primary mitigation like distancing or being outside are. > "...the disease is airborne." this part is more murky. it's airborne more like a leaf than a bird, in that nearly all virus particles either fall to the ground or fall apart relatively quickly, on the order of seconds. it's true that what remains in the air for more than a few seconds is potentially infectious, but the chances of getting infected from that, if appropriately distanced or outside, is miniscule (i.e., too small to worry about relative to other risks in our lives).

idlewords 6y ago
You're misunderstanding what airborne means. It means you can get through the HVAC on your cruise ship, or at choir practice, or in any poorly ventilated space no matter how far apart people stand.
- clairity 6y ago
  no, that's mediopolitical narrative talking, to instill fear and promote compliance. airborne basically means 'viable virus aloft in the air', in contrast to something like ballistic motion or droplets. no study has conclusively proven that corona transmits, much less survives, in the air for any appreciable duration. at best, there is some inconclusive inference of it. the princess cruises case, for example, employed some contact tracing (with unreliable subjects) and pcr-tested for (dead) virus particles on surfaces well after-the-fact. none of that comes close to proving airborne transmission (especially not fanciful diagrams of what could have been--those aren't proof, just conjecture). infections were overwhelmingly likely to have spread through prolonged conversations indoors where people were breathing each others' direct exhaust ('droplets'), like you'd do on a vacation, not just by being on the same ship.
  - idlewords 6y ago
    It's science talking, dude. Lancet article published today: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1382825519171833859 https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1382825519171833859

idlewords 6y ago

You're misunderstanding what airborne means. It means you can get through the HVAC on your cruise ship, or at choir practice, or in any poorly ventilated space no matter how far apart people stand.

clairity 6y ago
no, that's mediopolitical narrative talking, to instill fear and promote compliance. airborne basically means 'viable virus aloft in the air', in contrast to something like ballistic motion or droplets. no study has conclusively proven that corona transmits, much less survives, in the air for any appreciable duration. at best, there is some inconclusive inference of it. the princess cruises case, for example, employed some contact tracing (with unreliable subjects) and pcr-tested for (dead) virus particles on surfaces well after-the-fact. none of that comes close to proving airborne transmission (especially not fanciful diagrams of what could have been--those aren't proof, just conjecture). infections were overwhelmingly likely to have spread through prolonged conversations indoors where people were breathing each others' direct exhaust ('droplets'), like you'd do on a vacation, not just by being on the same ship.
- idlewords 6y ago
  It's science talking, dude. Lancet article published today: https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1382825519171833859 https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1382825519171833859