7 ms·

Imo part of the joy of hn is that this isn't actually true. Obviously not everyone knows what they are talking about, but some of the people who really do have

Imo part of the joy of hn is that this isn't actually true. Obviously not everyone knows what they are talking about, but some of the people who really do have serious knowledge on any given topic are on hn, and the average person here is at least slightly less likely to think they have knowledge when in fact they don't.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Yeah I remember in June of 2020 discussing the new aerosol data on HN and cringing about the 6 ft recommendation with cloth masks indoors. Finally a year+ later the WHO admitted as such (aerosol risk can be >50 ft for hours after a spread event), so sometimes we are ahead :)
- clairity 5y ago
  > "aerosol risk can be >50 ft for hours after a spread event" no, that's cringeworthy fearmongering. the virus is fragile and falls apart relatively quickly outside the body. the main risk behavior is having long conversations in close quarters where you're constantly exposed to a warm airstream of live virus.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    In the right humidity conditions with poor airflow it has been found to be stable for hours, this is how there were super spreader events from 1>500 in certain types of factories.
    - clairity 5y ago
      no, any explanation of a ‘super spreader event’ is making a post hoc rationalization, arising from the biases of the explainers. thermo-fluid models of such conditions are often similarly biased, but have the additional proof burden of not representing observed phenomena, just assumptions and suppositions about it. it’s just as likely that factory workers having lunch together is the cause of such a ‘super spreader event’. occam’s razor suggests we start with the simplest explanations before considering convolutions like that. make no mistake, if covid menacingly floating in the air to catch you unaware were actually a meaningful method of spread, we’d have evidence all over the place being reported feverishly by those very same biased reporting sources.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Yeah I remember in June of 2020 discussing the new aerosol data on HN and cringing about the 6 ft recommendation with cloth masks indoors. Finally a year+ later the WHO admitted as such (aerosol risk can be >50 ft for hours after a spread event), so sometimes we are ahead :)

clairity 5y ago
> "aerosol risk can be >50 ft for hours after a spread event" no, that's cringeworthy fearmongering. the virus is fragile and falls apart relatively quickly outside the body. the main risk behavior is having long conversations in close quarters where you're constantly exposed to a warm airstream of live virus.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  In the right humidity conditions with poor airflow it has been found to be stable for hours, this is how there were super spreader events from 1>500 in certain types of factories.
  - clairity 5y ago
    no, any explanation of a ‘super spreader event’ is making a post hoc rationalization, arising from the biases of the explainers. thermo-fluid models of such conditions are often similarly biased, but have the additional proof burden of not representing observed phenomena, just assumptions and suppositions about it. it’s just as likely that factory workers having lunch together is the cause of such a ‘super spreader event’. occam’s razor suggests we start with the simplest explanations before considering convolutions like that. make no mistake, if covid menacingly floating in the air to catch you unaware were actually a meaningful method of spread, we’d have evidence all over the place being reported feverishly by those very same biased reporting sources.