4 ms·

no, it's not "settled science" like that. the virus must traverse a gauntlet of death before reaching your juicy mucus membranes, including dessication and all

no, it's not "settled science" like that. the virus must traverse a gauntlet of death before reaching your juicy mucus membranes, including dessication and all manner of external forces that will inactivate it in the meantime. it falls apart in droves outside the body. you need constant exposure to warm, moist, infected exhaust so that the virus has trillions of chances of taking hold in your respiratory system, and it likely takes millions of virus particles making it across for enough to survive the immune response gauntlet inside the body. that a few virus particles in controlled tests miraculously manage to exist for a few minutes in the air has no bearing on real-world transmission rates. that's why a mask can work (better than distancing) in that one particular situation, but distancing is a better general mitigation. by the way, those early "studies" on long indoor spread were conjecture-based (e.g., using models), not rigorous science, and have failed to replicate.

YZF 5y ago
I'm not talking about model studies. I am talking about case studies, like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronaviru... Also: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-reinforces-role-of-aerosols-in-sars-cov-2-spread-68094 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-rein... Even early on with the Diamond Princess you've seen wide spread of the virus despite passengers being largely confined to their cabins. There were multiple other examples. We also know the Delta variant is more infectious. I'm not saying distancing doesn't work. Even if you assume the virus is spread in the indoors air it's not a terrible bad assumptions to think that a person emitting virus continuously will have a higher concentration of virus in their immediate vicinity. So sure, it's layers of defense. The mask is also about limiting the emissions in the first place and distancing indoors is not always practical in public busy spaces. But sure. It is not settled science. Science takes time. If your point is that we don't understand exactly what happens then sure, but we rarely do for anything in this field anyways.
- clairity 5y ago
  the diamond princess is especially poor evidence, as it was an after-the-fact investigation (with heavy motivation to find something and gain early notoriety), not a study per se. what likely happened was that there were multiple social infection vectors (not of the long-distance air variety but more the drunk chatting variety) and the crew and passengers distorted their testimony to limit their own liability exposure. the diamond princess case was also the source of the "virus lives for weeks outside the body" mistruth because pcr tests readily amplify partial, dead viral dna/rna just as well as live virus (it has to be 'killed' to be amplified, after all). but yes, viral concentration is higher near an infected person, but it falls off rapidly (to something like the 3rd power iirc) with distance and time, especially the latter of which being why incidental exposure in public places is unlikely to be material. it's also something a small minority of people have at a given time (on average less than 1% of those around you). it's mainly socializing for extended periods of time where masks can potentially help reduce infection (that's when we're also most likely to let our guard down). i'd go so far as to posit that sociability (via variables like social graph size/breadth) is likely more correlated to infection than (the lack of) mask usage.
  - timr 5y ago
    The diamond princess people also ate their meals in a shared space, IIRC. I think they changed that eventually, but by the time they did, the conclusion was hopelessly confounded.

YZF 5y ago

I'm not talking about model studies. I am talking about case studies, like: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronavirus-restaurants.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/health/airflow-coronaviru... Also: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-reinforces-role-of-aerosols-in-sars-cov-2-spread-68094 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/ferret-study-rein... Even early on with the Diamond Princess you've seen wide spread of the virus despite passengers being largely confined to their cabins. There were multiple other examples. We also know the Delta variant is more infectious. I'm not saying distancing doesn't work. Even if you assume the virus is spread in the indoors air it's not a terrible bad assumptions to think that a person emitting virus continuously will have a higher concentration of virus in their immediate vicinity. So sure, it's layers of defense. The mask is also about limiting the emissions in the first place and distancing indoors is not always practical in public busy spaces. But sure. It is not settled science. Science takes time. If your point is that we don't understand exactly what happens then sure, but we rarely do for anything in this field anyways.

clairity 5y ago
the diamond princess is especially poor evidence, as it was an after-the-fact investigation (with heavy motivation to find something and gain early notoriety), not a study per se. what likely happened was that there were multiple social infection vectors (not of the long-distance air variety but more the drunk chatting variety) and the crew and passengers distorted their testimony to limit their own liability exposure. the diamond princess case was also the source of the "virus lives for weeks outside the body" mistruth because pcr tests readily amplify partial, dead viral dna/rna just as well as live virus (it has to be 'killed' to be amplified, after all). but yes, viral concentration is higher near an infected person, but it falls off rapidly (to something like the 3rd power iirc) with distance and time, especially the latter of which being why incidental exposure in public places is unlikely to be material. it's also something a small minority of people have at a given time (on average less than 1% of those around you). it's mainly socializing for extended periods of time where masks can potentially help reduce infection (that's when we're also most likely to let our guard down). i'd go so far as to posit that sociability (via variables like social graph size/breadth) is likely more correlated to infection than (the lack of) mask usage.
- timr 5y ago
  The diamond princess people also ate their meals in a shared space, IIRC. I think they changed that eventually, but by the time they did, the conclusion was hopelessly confounded.