4 ms·

The evidence is now incontrovertible that people are "literally getting ill and dying" for diseases currently spread through the air. So the situation is analo

by isp 3y ago

The evidence is now incontrovertible that people are "literally getting ill and dying" for diseases currently spread through the air. So the situation is analogous: back then, it was controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the water (since many falsely thought it was already clean). Now, it is controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the air (since many falsely think that it is already clean).

taeric 3y ago
Most of that evidence is for really bad air in cities, though? Akin to the open sewage river from years ago, such that I don't see much debate there. Note, please don't take my post here as argument against having targets for ventilation. I don't intend it that way. I do think many people over state the dangers of in house stoves and such. I also have no problem saying that we have advanced enough that well ventilated house should be the default. Stated differently. I have no problem mandating child seats. I do wish the safety comparisons for them wasn't to "someone completely unbuckled in the vehicle." So, for air, I do not argue against better codes for ventilation. I also don't expect it to have an impact on my life. My last house didn't even have forced air anything, whereas my current house does. I feel basically the same between the two. Such that all of the stories of ventilation being a miracle cure rub me very much the wrong way.
- isp 3y ago
  Ah - I see where we are talking at cross purposes. I am primarily thinking of "dirty air" in the context of airborne diseases (e.g., Covid and flu). This can be any enclosed indoor place with people and without mitigations, i.e., doesn't require wildfires or stoves. The mitigations to clean this indoor "dirty air" can be either replacing with outdoor air, or directly "cleaning" by removing or inactivating the disease particles (e.g., with HEPA filters / UVGI).
  - taeric 3y ago
    Covid is, oddly, a specific one that has me scratching my head. I am all for increased ventilation. I have a hard time grokking any of the claims on covid. Note that it is easy to believe most claims, except schools stand in the way. The outlandish claims that so many have held about the magic of ... well, anything, seems to fall in the face of why it didn't demolish schools. It clearly spread through the schools. Just as I have friends where it hit their family, but didn't spread to us this round. Somehow. I don't think I can credit good hygiene for my family. Certainly not the 5yo. Again, I'm all for ventilation standards. They certainly shouldn't make things worse. By all reasoning, they should make things better. Claims against Covid/Flu, though, I take with some salt right now. I'm hopeful, but not sure I'm expecting anything there.
    - isp 3y ago
      I am definitely not one for outlandish claims. Amidst all the noise, my understanding of the key points is: - We know that airborne diseases primarily spread indoors - We know that we can clean the air, and that cleaning the air reduces disease spread Putting the two together, I believe that cleaning the air can improve public health. I don't expect most diseases to disappear entirely. But I do expect a dramatic reduction. Analogy: like cholera. It hasn't disappeared entirely, but I don't personally need to think about it during my day-to-day life because the incidence rate is now so low.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Agreed that, on that logic, I hope this works. I haven't recovered from the early claims that somehow kids were not getting covid, such that I have a hard time trusting what we "know" about the spread of some of these.
        isp 3y ago
        I agree that the earlier claim about kids somehow not catching/spreading were egregious. My takeaway was that evidence-free predictions should be treated differently to evidence-based predictions.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    It isn't practical to make every space as sterile as a clean room. Outside air also carries pathogens. Besides, humans and our ancestors have spent millions of years exposed to all sorts of things. It is why we have an immune system.
    - isp 3y ago
      This is a good example of exactly the kind of argument that would have been made against clean water 175 years ago, and which (I predict) will be unthinkable to make decades from now against clean air. The rise of respiratory pathogens corresponds with dense cities, which are only a few thousand years old. This is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. This is different for humans than for bats, which co-evolved for millions of years with such pathogens.

by isp 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

Most of that evidence is for really bad air in cities, though? Akin to the open sewage river from years ago, such that I don't see much debate there. Note, please don't take my post here as argument against having targets for ventilation. I don't intend it that way. I do think many people over state the dangers of in house stoves and such. I also have no problem saying that we have advanced enough that well ventilated house should be the default. Stated differently. I have no problem mandating child seats. I do wish the safety comparisons for them wasn't to "someone completely unbuckled in the vehicle." So, for air, I do not argue against better codes for ventilation. I also don't expect it to have an impact on my life. My last house didn't even have forced air anything, whereas my current house does. I feel basically the same between the two. Such that all of the stories of ventilation being a miracle cure rub me very much the wrong way.

isp 3y ago
Ah - I see where we are talking at cross purposes. I am primarily thinking of "dirty air" in the context of airborne diseases (e.g., Covid and flu). This can be any enclosed indoor place with people and without mitigations, i.e., doesn't require wildfires or stoves. The mitigations to clean this indoor "dirty air" can be either replacing with outdoor air, or directly "cleaning" by removing or inactivating the disease particles (e.g., with HEPA filters / UVGI).
- taeric 3y ago
  Covid is, oddly, a specific one that has me scratching my head. I am all for increased ventilation. I have a hard time grokking any of the claims on covid. Note that it is easy to believe most claims, except schools stand in the way. The outlandish claims that so many have held about the magic of ... well, anything, seems to fall in the face of why it didn't demolish schools. It clearly spread through the schools. Just as I have friends where it hit their family, but didn't spread to us this round. Somehow. I don't think I can credit good hygiene for my family. Certainly not the 5yo. Again, I'm all for ventilation standards. They certainly shouldn't make things worse. By all reasoning, they should make things better. Claims against Covid/Flu, though, I take with some salt right now. I'm hopeful, but not sure I'm expecting anything there.
  - isp 3y ago
    I am definitely not one for outlandish claims. Amidst all the noise, my understanding of the key points is: - We know that airborne diseases primarily spread indoors - We know that we can clean the air, and that cleaning the air reduces disease spread Putting the two together, I believe that cleaning the air can improve public health. I don't expect most diseases to disappear entirely. But I do expect a dramatic reduction. Analogy: like cholera. It hasn't disappeared entirely, but I don't personally need to think about it during my day-to-day life because the incidence rate is now so low.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Agreed that, on that logic, I hope this works. I haven't recovered from the early claims that somehow kids were not getting covid, such that I have a hard time trusting what we "know" about the spread of some of these.
      - isp 3y ago
        I agree that the earlier claim about kids somehow not catching/spreading were egregious. My takeaway was that evidence-free predictions should be treated differently to evidence-based predictions.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  It isn't practical to make every space as sterile as a clean room. Outside air also carries pathogens. Besides, humans and our ancestors have spent millions of years exposed to all sorts of things. It is why we have an immune system.
  - isp 3y ago
    This is a good example of exactly the kind of argument that would have been made against clean water 175 years ago, and which (I predict) will be unthinkable to make decades from now against clean air. The rise of respiratory pathogens corresponds with dense cities, which are only a few thousand years old. This is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. This is different for humans than for bats, which co-evolved for millions of years with such pathogens.