11 ms·

Why admitting Covid is Airborne is so hard

115 points by dsr12 5y ago

j7ake 5y ago
Would COVID being airborne mean that one should wear an N95 mask rather than just surgical masks? Analogous to when doctors perform procedures on patients that may produce aerosols?
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Sure. That almost became the mandatory policy where I live.
  - MandieD 5y ago
    It was the mandatory policy in Bavaria from about January to this week. At this point, I’m so used to the FFP2 mask I found that fits best that I’m still wearing those instead of the surgical masks we can (for) now wear instead - hooking behind the head is key.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  Face shields as well. There was an Indian study showing that they reduced infections to nothing in social workers visiting unmasked people. Note that this also means that surgical masks should still prevent infecting others.
  - evilos 5y ago
    Do you mean face shield only? That seems like it would be much worse than mask only, if covid is airborne as the article suggests. Mask plus face shield should be even better than mask only.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      No, they were using face shields as well as mask.
  - benf76 5y ago
    Citation for the study? The Indians also used ivermectin to great effect to reduce their wave 2 months ago.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      Ivermectin is bunkk get over it and get vaccinated.
      - terracottage 5y ago
        Ivermectin modulates both the activity of the virus and the immune overreaction to it. Get over it.
        himinlomax 5y ago
        The doses shown to be effective against the virus in vitro are too high to be achieved in a patient with a safe dose.
        dang 5y ago
        Perpetuating flamewars will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please review the rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        terracottage 5y ago
        No. I don't believe for a second you enforce those rules equally anyway. Otherwise you'd have done something about the flagging years ago.
      - nradov 5y ago
        I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, however we don't yet know whether ivermectin is bunk. Even vaccinated people can have symptomatic infections so better treatments are needed. Some studies have shown positive results. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989
  - nikolay 5y ago
    There was a Swedish study showing face shields WITHOUT mask don't do anything. Also a study showing people with eyeglasses get infected less, i.e. it's possible that one can get infected thru eyes, although, I thing, it's pretty rare. Let's not forget that tear ducts drain in your nose!
- spoonjim 5y ago
  I’ve been wearing N95s since Day 1 and most clueful people who could get them were doing the same.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Nothing in this is binary, there are few 100% protections, there is only risk reduction. Surgical masks reduce risk. N95 or FFP2 masks reduce risks more. So, prefer N95 masks. This does not mean that surgical masks or cloth masks are useless, or that N95 masks are perfect.
  - entropicgravity 5y ago
    The empirical results of mandating masks is that virus spread is reduced substantially. But most masks people wear are not N95 type masks and shouldn't be as effective as the empirical results indicate. One article I read suggests that the effectiveness of masks comes not primarily from the filtering out of the virus but from increasing the humidity in the respiratory tract which in turn affects the ability of the virus to transmit disease.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      Do you have any sources for that empirical result? I saw a big study result from Africa that came out last week, and it showed that surgical masks were helpful in reducing spread but the p-values were surprisingly weak except in the over-65 group. And cloth masks were very statistically weak in helping anyone.
    - everybodyknows 5y ago
      >increasing the humidity in the respiratory tract which in turn affects the ability of the virus to transmit disease. Consistent with early studies on mask sterilization techniques, which found that adding moisture to heat accelerated decay of virus particles.
  - nradov 5y ago
    A recent study found that in large populations, cloth masks were useless and surgical masks were only marginally effective. https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-... But even with masks, over a long period the risk that everyone will eventually be exposed is close to 100%. That's why instead of obsessing over masks we should focus on vaccinating as many vulnerable people as possible. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
- benf76 5y ago
  It means that cloth fabric does nothing against aerosol. Even N95 masks don’t filter out all virons which can be as small as 1nm and escape the electrostatic charge of the N95. Security theater.
  - beeforpork 5y ago
    No, this is misinterpretation and too absolute a conclusion. The truth is not found in extremes. Protection is about reducing viral load -- it is useful even without fully eliminating viral load. A cloth facemask does get damp when you breathe through it, ergo some of your exhaled water (= infection carrier) got caught. An N95 mask catches a lot more. You need a bit of viral load to get infected, so whatever reduces viral load will help. It is dangerous to immediately conclude that aerosol transmission makes masks security theater. They do not, they do help a lot.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    I had a hair on my phone, and I tried to blow it off while wearing an N95. Nothing. Even air itself is substantially slowed through an N95. It's the difference between sucking a viral load at full speed into your lungs, and having it crawl through a barrier at extremely low speed.
- murgindrag 5y ago
  My impression is that there are rapidly rising and then diminishing returns on investment. Going from cloth to any mask with a high filtration layer is a huge improvement. Cloth is <30% of small particles. High filtration layer is >90%. Beyond that, the benefits are questionable. Some surgical masks include a non-woven layer, and those already do pretty well (but how would you find those? pre-COVID it was easy). From there, genuine (non-counterfeit) KN95 and nanofiber masks are a big step up, and incredibly effective. At least pre-delta, if everyone used those, combined with modest social distancing, there was very little spread. N95 masks are a modest improvement from there in terms of filtration, but by that point, mask quality (at least pre-delta) no longer appeared to be the dominant risk factor. COVID19 can spread through other mucous membranes (e.g. eyes). While combined with a face shield, used correctly, etc. I'm sure N95 make a difference over KN95, in practical public health use, I doubt there's any difference. This is a good summary of data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5LjjcFixwmOG853Ff45d3O-L0/edit#gid=1976839763 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5L... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i06OAItoOwIUaMjElr8mhh0Rw-it6WL-ODIQMZUOQxE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i06OAItoOwIUaMjElr8m... I don't really distinguish between things with >90% filtration. Unless you've got an excellent seal and are otherwise protected, it doesn't matter much. Note that the measurements are performed at 300nm. There isn't much spread at 300nm (a single virus particle is unlikely to make you sick). A 90% mask at 300nm will have >>>90% at e.g. a micron. A micron particle is unlikely to have more than one or two COVID particles (a micron is 5 COVIDs wide). I do distinguish based on pressure drop. Lower means more air goes through the mask, rather than around. I also do distinguish based on technology. The nanofiber ones don't degrade the same way as N95. The N95 nonblown layer will theoretically beat nanofiber for the first couple of hours of use, but once it's moist from your breath, nanofiber beats it. Personally, I use a disposable nanofiber mask, and I consider it a better (e.g. safer) option. I'm not in a controlled cleanroom/hospital setting, and life happens. Masks do get reused, abused, rained on, and generally exposed to life. Nanofiber have much better durability. I also supply chain. Amazon and eBay are rife with counterfeits. I like masks where I can order direct. Especially 3M tends to be mostly fakes, unless ordered through authorized distributors. I distinguish on fit. In addition, a well-fitting 90% masks beats a poor-fitting 99% mask, since with a good fit, all the air goes through the mask. Order yourself a variety pack and see what's comfortable and fits. The biggest thing you can do is limit yourself to settings where everyone uses reasonable precautions. All parties wearing KN95 masks, having reasonable social distancing, favoring outdoors, vaccinated if >12, etc. is pretty safe. If you have a mixture of extreme precautions and no precautions, everyone is at risk.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  > Would COVID being airborne mean that one should wear an N95 mask rather than just surgical masks? Yes. >Studies that have been done show that if an individual might get infected within 15 minutes in a room, by time and concentration of the virus in the room, add a face cloth covering you only get about five more minutes of protection. On the other hand if you use the n95 respirators and fit them tight to your face, you can actually spend 25 hours in that same room and still be protected. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks-provide-much-protection-we-think-bglhwy/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks...
- Proven 5y ago
  No. There's a reason it's not called N100.
ncmncm 5y ago
We have to realize that medical doctors are not, as a rule, scientists. They typically get their doctoral degrees without personally ever doing any actual science, beyond pre-cooked experiments in lab classes. Instead, they have read a great deal about what other people who did science said. But what people say is not the same as what they do, and paying attention to what they say is not a substitute for doing what they did. Instead, doctors are obliged to memorize a great deal of what they are told are facts. Probably most of what they are told really are facts. But there is nothing systematic distinguishing facts with a great deal of support from those that are just repeated lore, like the business about airborne disease transmission. Doctors have rejected evidence for airborne transmission because it contradicts what they were taught are facts, with no warning about how shaky any asserted fact is. Another source of resistance is that facts, to be believed, need a theory. A fact without a theoretical mechanism by which it must operate is rejected. We saw that for cholera before germ theory made sense of it. For a current example, in doi:10.1093/gerona/glab115, it turns out that having had a recent TDAP vaccine (which you can ask for at any pharmacy) turns out to predict, very robustly, a 40% decrease in onset of dementia among patients at an age where they are at risk for it. A 40% effect size is enormous! At this point, nobody knows why. Is it the tetanus, the diphtheria, the pertussis antigens? Or something else mixed in? Nobody knows. But without a demonstrated mechanism, nobody can allow anyone to see them to take it seriously.
- scoutt 5y ago
  Yes. It's called Applied science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science). "Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals. It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine." It's different from experimental/research science. Nothing new. > truth, to be believed, needs a theory Science is not the pursuit of "truth". "If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Prof. Indiana Jones
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    You are confused in exactly the same way as everyone at the CDC who insisted, and continues insisting, that airborne transmission of COVID-19 does not happen.
gumby 5y ago
The article mentions masks only once. What is the point of a mask but to suppress airborn transmission?
- detaro 5y ago
  Prevent droplet spread.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  I don't think anybody expects a mask will fully protect them. But they help. And they provide an important psychological benefit: They make people aware that the virus is still amongst us. They put social pressure on other people to conform and wear a mask like everybody.
taurusnoises 5y ago
I also think that part of the resistance to calling Covid transmission "airborne" has to do with containing mass hysteria. Droplets are "things," matter we can wipe away, dodge like bullets in The Matrix. A virus being airborne instills an even greater level of fear then is already apparent, because "airborne" takes the control out of it. "How can we clean the air?" Air isn't a "thing." Even the arguments for the airborne theory (which I'm partial to believe) are basically trying to make manageable a concept that seems impossible to manage--the cleaning of the air, the idea that airborne does not necessarily mean "out of our control."
- gruez 5y ago
  >A virus being airborne instills an even greater level of fear then is already apparent, because "airborne" takes the control out of it. "How can we clean the air?" Air isn't a "thing." What about air filters? IIRC at the start of the pandemic various transit authorities and airlines were assuring the public that travel was safe-ish because their vehicles ran HEPA filters.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    If the airflow rate is sufficiently high than that would be true.
sonicggg 5y ago
The answer is simple, you don't need an entire article on that. It's all politically motivated. Accepting it as airborne would force governments to accept the costs of fighting it. Forget that "keep the 2m distance" nonsense. Airborne means you need N95 required everywhere. Public gatherings are out of question too. And if you fight the narrative, you can easily be labeled as "anti-science", whatever that means. Did you all forget how the mask guidance was changed overnight around April/2020? All in the name of "new science information". Take any information from the CDC or WHO with a large grain of salt.
- nradov 5y ago
  Regardless of whether the virus is airborne or not, there is no need to require N95 masks everywhere or prohibit public gatherings. All exposure control interventions are ultimately futile. They can perhaps slow the spread down slightly to reduce impact on the healthcare system but we'll all eventually be exposed no matter what we do. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
  - sharx 5y ago
    "slow the spread down slightly to reduce impact on the healthcare system" is pretty important during these big waves. Banning outdoor gatherings is probably overkill though, I believe the worst places still have maskless indoor activities.
  - sonicggg 5y ago
    Why are people so obsessed with death count? We still don't understand the long term effects of this virus. You don't know the "Long Covid" count for example. And there is very little evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing that.
    - rspeele 5y ago
      Death count is relatively objective. There is some fudge factor for whether somebody died “from” COVID vs “with” COVID but other than that it’s cut and dry. That is a big advantage over comparing case numbers, which depend heavily on testing, or long COVID which there’s not even a hard definition of.
curryst 5y ago
I don't think it's necessarily political. One of the issues is that airborne diseases have a totally different set of requirements for hospitals, and they're much harder and more expensive to comply with. Specifically, patients with contagious airborne diseases need to be kept in rooms with lower pressure than the rest of the hospital to prevent contagions leaking out. I would imagine we have even fewer of those than we have ventilators and ER beds. Of course, we can free doctors of that restriction, but I don't know how much we stand to gain versus any losses that occur in the transition period as hospitals wonder what the guidelines are. The other complication is that as I understand it (and I could be wrong), airborne vs droplet is not a hard and firm line, it's more of a spectrum. The distinction seems to be largely in how long a space will "carry" the disease. Things like the flu aren't typically considered airborne because they don't hang in the air for very long. If someone coughs on you, you might get infected. If you walk through a grocery store an hour after someone with the flu walked through, you're probably not going to get infected. Measles is a classic airborne illness because the space is infections for ~2 hours after someone with measles walks through. Some think the distinction is outdated, and anything that spreads via the air should be considered airborne. Others seem to think that larger particles should be considered airborne. At any rate, I can see some validity to attempting to maintain the status quo. Several regions are in the midst of severe COVID outbreaks, and given the upheaval an airborne recognition would create, I think the CDCs stance of strongly hinting that it's airborne without declaring it such is reasonable. They don't seem to be denying it's airborne, just not officially declaring it so. We can loop back and formalize the airborne status later, when hospitals aren't swamped. I don't want to stress already stressed hospitals, and I don't want to overly stress our healthcare workers. They have it hard enough, and we are having a hard time getting enough of them.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  I do agree that airborne vs aerosol is a spectrum, but I do think not admitting it political. Admitting it would mean N95s should be used more widely. As it stands we have "face covering" mandates in some places when it should be surgical or higher and should actually be enforced.
  - 5y ago
thinkingemote 5y ago
Covid-19 is the disease which one can get from the virus. The actual virus which is spread around is SARS-CoV-2. I would only hope that those speaking about this would understand it by now.
- achenatx 5y ago
  even scientists often times use the disease name interchangeably with the virus.
achenatx 5y ago
Airborne has special meaning. Clearly covid spreads "through the air" that doesnt mean it is airborne. One problem is there is no strict definition of airborne. There is no doubt that covid can spread via an airborne path, but it may not be the dominant path. The original variant had about a .7% infection rate through casual contact. For people living in the same household it was something like 12%. When people talk about airborne, one implication is that it floats in the air and is infectious for a long time. This generally means a much higher rate of transmission. One factor in this is the infectious dose. The lower the infectious dose, the more likely it is to be airborne. A TB infection can start from one bacterium. So even though they are huge, it is airborne. Delta is 2X more infectious than the original, that means it likely needs a smaller infectious dose and is more likely to transmit via airborne particles. Just because covid can transmit via an airborne path doesnt mean it is the main way it is transmitted. When we think of airborne we think of highly infectious viruses like the measles virus. << Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected. Measles virus can live for up to two hours in an airspace after an infected person leaves an area. >>
Arete314159 5y ago
The evidence that sars 1.0 was airborne was already in medical journals. I am not a scientist or a doctor, but I found it on pubmed in feb of 2020. While the history of science aspect to the denial is important, we cannot discount good old fashioned greed. If Airborne Covid is the messaging, then people don't want to shop, fly, or do lots of things where they spend their money. If however we have messaging about 6 feet apart, wash your hands, etc., then folks will still spend money.
nikolay 5y ago
I am surprised nearly all measures around the globe ignore the fact that the main method of infection is the aerosol one. People still damage their lungs inhaling alcohol vapors and other toxic disinfectants, still waste resources wiping stuff up, and washing frantically their hands, wear masks that do little, instead of focusing PPE on protecting the eyes and wearing aerosol-filtering masks like KN95, N95, KF94, FFP2, and higher grades!

115 points by dsr12 5y ago

Would COVID being airborne mean that one should wear an N95 mask rather than just surgical masks? Analogous to when doctors perform procedures on patients that may produce aerosols?

pasabagi 5y ago
Sure. That almost became the mandatory policy where I live.
- MandieD 5y ago
  It was the mandatory policy in Bavaria from about January to this week. At this point, I’m so used to the FFP2 mask I found that fits best that I’m still wearing those instead of the surgical masks we can (for) now wear instead - hooking behind the head is key.
himinlomax 5y ago
Face shields as well. There was an Indian study showing that they reduced infections to nothing in social workers visiting unmasked people. Note that this also means that surgical masks should still prevent infecting others.
- evilos 5y ago
  Do you mean face shield only? That seems like it would be much worse than mask only, if covid is airborne as the article suggests. Mask plus face shield should be even better than mask only.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    No, they were using face shields as well as mask.
- benf76 5y ago
  Citation for the study? The Indians also used ivermectin to great effect to reduce their wave 2 months ago.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    Ivermectin is bunkk get over it and get vaccinated.
    - terracottage 5y ago
      Ivermectin modulates both the activity of the virus and the immune overreaction to it. Get over it.
      - himinlomax 5y ago
        The doses shown to be effective against the virus in vitro are too high to be achieved in a patient with a safe dose.
      - dang 5y ago
        Perpetuating flamewars will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. Please review the rules. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        terracottage 5y ago
        No. I don't believe for a second you enforce those rules equally anyway. Otherwise you'd have done something about the flagging years ago.
    - nradov 5y ago
      I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, however we don't yet know whether ivermectin is bunk. Even vaccinated people can have symptomatic infections so better treatments are needed. Some studies have shown positive results. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989 https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/6/989
- nikolay 5y ago
  There was a Swedish study showing face shields WITHOUT mask don't do anything. Also a study showing people with eyeglasses get infected less, i.e. it's possible that one can get infected thru eyes, although, I thing, it's pretty rare. Let's not forget that tear ducts drain in your nose!
spoonjim 5y ago
I’ve been wearing N95s since Day 1 and most clueful people who could get them were doing the same.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Nothing in this is binary, there are few 100% protections, there is only risk reduction. Surgical masks reduce risk. N95 or FFP2 masks reduce risks more. So, prefer N95 masks. This does not mean that surgical masks or cloth masks are useless, or that N95 masks are perfect.
- entropicgravity 5y ago
  The empirical results of mandating masks is that virus spread is reduced substantially. But most masks people wear are not N95 type masks and shouldn't be as effective as the empirical results indicate. One article I read suggests that the effectiveness of masks comes not primarily from the filtering out of the virus but from increasing the humidity in the respiratory tract which in turn affects the ability of the virus to transmit disease.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Do you have any sources for that empirical result? I saw a big study result from Africa that came out last week, and it showed that surgical masks were helpful in reducing spread but the p-values were surprisingly weak except in the over-65 group. And cloth masks were very statistically weak in helping anyone.
  - everybodyknows 5y ago
    >increasing the humidity in the respiratory tract which in turn affects the ability of the virus to transmit disease. Consistent with early studies on mask sterilization techniques, which found that adding moisture to heat accelerated decay of virus particles.
- nradov 5y ago
  A recent study found that in large populations, cloth masks were useless and surgical masks were only marginally effective. https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-masking-covid-19-cluster-randomized-trial-bangladesh https://www.poverty-action.org/publication/impact-community-... But even with masks, over a long period the risk that everyone will eventually be exposed is close to 100%. That's why instead of obsessing over masks we should focus on vaccinating as many vulnerable people as possible. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
benf76 5y ago
It means that cloth fabric does nothing against aerosol. Even N95 masks don’t filter out all virons which can be as small as 1nm and escape the electrostatic charge of the N95. Security theater.
- beeforpork 5y ago
  No, this is misinterpretation and too absolute a conclusion. The truth is not found in extremes. Protection is about reducing viral load -- it is useful even without fully eliminating viral load. A cloth facemask does get damp when you breathe through it, ergo some of your exhaled water (= infection carrier) got caught. An N95 mask catches a lot more. You need a bit of viral load to get infected, so whatever reduces viral load will help. It is dangerous to immediately conclude that aerosol transmission makes masks security theater. They do not, they do help a lot.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I had a hair on my phone, and I tried to blow it off while wearing an N95. Nothing. Even air itself is substantially slowed through an N95. It's the difference between sucking a viral load at full speed into your lungs, and having it crawl through a barrier at extremely low speed.
murgindrag 5y ago
My impression is that there are rapidly rising and then diminishing returns on investment. Going from cloth to any mask with a high filtration layer is a huge improvement. Cloth is <30% of small particles. High filtration layer is >90%. Beyond that, the benefits are questionable. Some surgical masks include a non-woven layer, and those already do pretty well (but how would you find those? pre-COVID it was easy). From there, genuine (non-counterfeit) KN95 and nanofiber masks are a big step up, and incredibly effective. At least pre-delta, if everyone used those, combined with modest social distancing, there was very little spread. N95 masks are a modest improvement from there in terms of filtration, but by that point, mask quality (at least pre-delta) no longer appeared to be the dominant risk factor. COVID19 can spread through other mucous membranes (e.g. eyes). While combined with a face shield, used correctly, etc. I'm sure N95 make a difference over KN95, in practical public health use, I doubt there's any difference. This is a good summary of data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5LjjcFixwmOG853Ff45d3O-L0/edit#gid=1976839763 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1M0mdNLpTWEGcluK6hh5L... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i06OAItoOwIUaMjElr8mhh0Rw-it6WL-ODIQMZUOQxE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i06OAItoOwIUaMjElr8m... I don't really distinguish between things with >90% filtration. Unless you've got an excellent seal and are otherwise protected, it doesn't matter much. Note that the measurements are performed at 300nm. There isn't much spread at 300nm (a single virus particle is unlikely to make you sick). A 90% mask at 300nm will have >>>90% at e.g. a micron. A micron particle is unlikely to have more than one or two COVID particles (a micron is 5 COVIDs wide). I do distinguish based on pressure drop. Lower means more air goes through the mask, rather than around. I also do distinguish based on technology. The nanofiber ones don't degrade the same way as N95. The N95 nonblown layer will theoretically beat nanofiber for the first couple of hours of use, but once it's moist from your breath, nanofiber beats it. Personally, I use a disposable nanofiber mask, and I consider it a better (e.g. safer) option. I'm not in a controlled cleanroom/hospital setting, and life happens. Masks do get reused, abused, rained on, and generally exposed to life. Nanofiber have much better durability. I also supply chain. Amazon and eBay are rife with counterfeits. I like masks where I can order direct. Especially 3M tends to be mostly fakes, unless ordered through authorized distributors. I distinguish on fit. In addition, a well-fitting 90% masks beats a poor-fitting 99% mask, since with a good fit, all the air goes through the mask. Order yourself a variety pack and see what's comfortable and fits. The biggest thing you can do is limit yourself to settings where everyone uses reasonable precautions. All parties wearing KN95 masks, having reasonable social distancing, favoring outdoors, vaccinated if >12, etc. is pretty safe. If you have a mixture of extreme precautions and no precautions, everyone is at risk.
GeekyBear 5y ago
> Would COVID being airborne mean that one should wear an N95 mask rather than just surgical masks? Yes. >Studies that have been done show that if an individual might get infected within 15 minutes in a room, by time and concentration of the virus in the room, add a face cloth covering you only get about five more minutes of protection. On the other hand if you use the n95 respirators and fit them tight to your face, you can actually spend 25 hours in that same room and still be protected. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks-provide-much-protection-we-think-bglhwy/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks...
Proven 5y ago
No. There's a reason it's not called N100.

ncmncm 5y ago

We have to realize that medical doctors are not, as a rule, scientists. They typically get their doctoral degrees without personally ever doing any actual science, beyond pre-cooked experiments in lab classes. Instead, they have read a great deal about what other people who did science said. But what people say is not the same as what they do, and paying attention to what they say is not a substitute for doing what they did. Instead, doctors are obliged to memorize a great deal of what they are told are facts. Probably most of what they are told really are facts. But there is nothing systematic distinguishing facts with a great deal of support from those that are just repeated lore, like the business about airborne disease transmission. Doctors have rejected evidence for airborne transmission because it contradicts what they were taught are facts, with no warning about how shaky any asserted fact is. Another source of resistance is that facts, to be believed, need a theory. A fact without a theoretical mechanism by which it must operate is rejected. We saw that for cholera before germ theory made sense of it. For a current example, in doi:10.1093/gerona/glab115, it turns out that having had a recent TDAP vaccine (which you can ask for at any pharmacy) turns out to predict, very robustly, a 40% decrease in onset of dementia among patients at an age where they are at risk for it. A 40% effect size is enormous! At this point, nobody knows why. Is it the tetanus, the diphtheria, the pertussis antigens? Or something else mixed in? Nobody knows. But without a demonstrated mechanism, nobody can allow anyone to see them to take it seriously.

scoutt 5y ago
Yes. It's called Applied science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science). "Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge obtained via conclusions from the method to attain practical goals. It includes a broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine." It's different from experimental/research science. Nothing new. > truth, to be believed, needs a theory Science is not the pursuit of "truth". "If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Prof. Indiana Jones
- ncmncm 5y ago
  You are confused in exactly the same way as everyone at the CDC who insisted, and continues insisting, that airborne transmission of COVID-19 does not happen.

gumby 5y ago

The article mentions masks only once. What is the point of a mask but to suppress airborn transmission?

detaro 5y ago
Prevent droplet spread.
galaxyLogic 5y ago
I don't think anybody expects a mask will fully protect them. But they help. And they provide an important psychological benefit: They make people aware that the virus is still amongst us. They put social pressure on other people to conform and wear a mask like everybody.

taurusnoises 5y ago

I also think that part of the resistance to calling Covid transmission "airborne" has to do with containing mass hysteria. Droplets are "things," matter we can wipe away, dodge like bullets in The Matrix. A virus being airborne instills an even greater level of fear then is already apparent, because "airborne" takes the control out of it. "How can we clean the air?" Air isn't a "thing." Even the arguments for the airborne theory (which I'm partial to believe) are basically trying to make manageable a concept that seems impossible to manage--the cleaning of the air, the idea that airborne does not necessarily mean "out of our control."

gruez 5y ago
>A virus being airborne instills an even greater level of fear then is already apparent, because "airborne" takes the control out of it. "How can we clean the air?" Air isn't a "thing." What about air filters? IIRC at the start of the pandemic various transit authorities and airlines were assuring the public that travel was safe-ish because their vehicles ran HEPA filters.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  If the airflow rate is sufficiently high than that would be true.

sonicggg 5y ago

The answer is simple, you don't need an entire article on that. It's all politically motivated. Accepting it as airborne would force governments to accept the costs of fighting it. Forget that "keep the 2m distance" nonsense. Airborne means you need N95 required everywhere. Public gatherings are out of question too. And if you fight the narrative, you can easily be labeled as "anti-science", whatever that means. Did you all forget how the mask guidance was changed overnight around April/2020? All in the name of "new science information". Take any information from the CDC or WHO with a large grain of salt.

nradov 5y ago
Regardless of whether the virus is airborne or not, there is no need to require N95 masks everywhere or prohibit public gatherings. All exposure control interventions are ultimately futile. They can perhaps slow the spread down slightly to reduce impact on the healthcare system but we'll all eventually be exposed no matter what we do. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing deaths. https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immunity-not-possible-astrazeneca-developer-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
- sharx 5y ago
  "slow the spread down slightly to reduce impact on the healthcare system" is pretty important during these big waves. Banning outdoor gatherings is probably overkill though, I believe the worst places still have maskless indoor activities.
- sonicggg 5y ago
  Why are people so obsessed with death count? We still don't understand the long term effects of this virus. You don't know the "Long Covid" count for example. And there is very little evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing that.
  - rspeele 5y ago
    Death count is relatively objective. There is some fudge factor for whether somebody died “from” COVID vs “with” COVID but other than that it’s cut and dry. That is a big advantage over comparing case numbers, which depend heavily on testing, or long COVID which there’s not even a hard definition of.

curryst 5y ago

I don't think it's necessarily political. One of the issues is that airborne diseases have a totally different set of requirements for hospitals, and they're much harder and more expensive to comply with. Specifically, patients with contagious airborne diseases need to be kept in rooms with lower pressure than the rest of the hospital to prevent contagions leaking out. I would imagine we have even fewer of those than we have ventilators and ER beds. Of course, we can free doctors of that restriction, but I don't know how much we stand to gain versus any losses that occur in the transition period as hospitals wonder what the guidelines are. The other complication is that as I understand it (and I could be wrong), airborne vs droplet is not a hard and firm line, it's more of a spectrum. The distinction seems to be largely in how long a space will "carry" the disease. Things like the flu aren't typically considered airborne because they don't hang in the air for very long. If someone coughs on you, you might get infected. If you walk through a grocery store an hour after someone with the flu walked through, you're probably not going to get infected. Measles is a classic airborne illness because the space is infections for ~2 hours after someone with measles walks through. Some think the distinction is outdated, and anything that spreads via the air should be considered airborne. Others seem to think that larger particles should be considered airborne. At any rate, I can see some validity to attempting to maintain the status quo. Several regions are in the midst of severe COVID outbreaks, and given the upheaval an airborne recognition would create, I think the CDCs stance of strongly hinting that it's airborne without declaring it such is reasonable. They don't seem to be denying it's airborne, just not officially declaring it so. We can loop back and formalize the airborne status later, when hospitals aren't swamped. I don't want to stress already stressed hospitals, and I don't want to overly stress our healthcare workers. They have it hard enough, and we are having a hard time getting enough of them.

LorenPechtel 5y ago
I do agree that airborne vs aerosol is a spectrum, but I do think not admitting it political. Admitting it would mean N95s should be used more widely. As it stands we have "face covering" mandates in some places when it should be surgical or higher and should actually be enforced.
- 5y ago

thinkingemote 5y ago

Covid-19 is the disease which one can get from the virus. The actual virus which is spread around is SARS-CoV-2. I would only hope that those speaking about this would understand it by now.

achenatx 5y ago
even scientists often times use the disease name interchangeably with the virus.

achenatx 5y ago

Airborne has special meaning. Clearly covid spreads "through the air" that doesnt mean it is airborne. One problem is there is no strict definition of airborne. There is no doubt that covid can spread via an airborne path, but it may not be the dominant path. The original variant had about a .7% infection rate through casual contact. For people living in the same household it was something like 12%. When people talk about airborne, one implication is that it floats in the air and is infectious for a long time. This generally means a much higher rate of transmission. One factor in this is the infectious dose. The lower the infectious dose, the more likely it is to be airborne. A TB infection can start from one bacterium. So even though they are huge, it is airborne. Delta is 2X more infectious than the original, that means it likely needs a smaller infectious dose and is more likely to transmit via airborne particles. Just because covid can transmit via an airborne path doesnt mean it is the main way it is transmitted. When we think of airborne we think of highly infectious viruses like the measles virus. << Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected. Measles virus can live for up to two hours in an airspace after an infected person leaves an area. >>

Arete314159 5y ago

The evidence that sars 1.0 was airborne was already in medical journals. I am not a scientist or a doctor, but I found it on pubmed in feb of 2020. While the history of science aspect to the denial is important, we cannot discount good old fashioned greed. If Airborne Covid is the messaging, then people don't want to shop, fly, or do lots of things where they spend their money. If however we have messaging about 6 feet apart, wash your hands, etc., then folks will still spend money.

nikolay 5y ago

I am surprised nearly all measures around the globe ignore the fact that the main method of infection is the aerosol one. People still damage their lungs inhaling alcohol vapors and other toxic disinfectants, still waste resources wiping stuff up, and washing frantically their hands, wear masks that do little, instead of focusing PPE on protecting the eyes and wearing aerosol-filtering masks like KN95, N95, KF94, FFP2, and higher grades!