4 ms·

The challenge isn't just "figuring it out"; the challenge is also actually putting it in place even knowing that. Because, astonishingly, there seem to be actua

The challenge isn't just "figuring it out"; the challenge is also actually putting it in place even knowing that. Because, astonishingly, there seem to be actual people against the concept of air purification. (Just read through this comments section.) There were doctors and surgeons against the concept of handwashing, too, but fortunately they lost. Unfortunately, it took a long time for them to lose, and a lot of people died as a result. How do we skip that part?

mdp2021 2y ago
> air purification «Air purification» interpreted as "destroying all life in the air you breathe"? That would be an extraordinary claim and you would have to prove that it is a good idea. ("Air purification" can be interpreted to be about chemical and mechanical qualities, before the consideration of the living entities in the air.)
- jstummbillig 2y ago
  Let's go with "air purification" as in "what air purifiers are supposed to effect, as observed in the study being discussed in this thread"
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > what air purifiers are supposed to effect, as observed in the study Which would be? Have you seen details in the submitted article? I suppose this is the study (but the page is bouncing me): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024067550 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402... I have an air purifier working not two meters from me - and it is an HEPA filter with forced ventilation. Not an "air disinfectant".
    - jstummbillig 2y ago
      Per this study, the number of sick days.
      - mdp2021 2y ago
        No, you got confused there. The point is "what kind of air purification" should we pursue. Correctly you wrote that it should be probably that of the study - but the submission does not say what it is... Rotating mallets? HEPA? Death rays? Carbon?
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > «Air purification» interpreted as "destroying all life in the air you breathe"? Is this sarcasm? Do you want ‘extra’ life inside your body, like tapeworms and other parasites?
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > Is this sarcasm? Do you want ‘extra’ life inside your body Not at all: perfectly serious. We are in a system surrounded by living entities - some innocuous, some threatening, some helpful, some being the threatening food of helpful ones... Your body already hosts living entities that live with you symbiotic. Some of them have the extremely important role to keep the worse others at bay through geopolitical control (you remove them, the damaging ones have free course...). There are many more things around you than «tapeworms and other parasites». And they could be active part of a system (which could get unbalanced without a part). So: before stating e.g. that all other life (e.g. in the air) should be wiped out, an intellectual inquiry about the model must be given. You do not embrace what superficially sounds like a good idea.
maxerickson 2y ago
Lots of places are going to do the regulatory minimum for ventilation, and I sure haven't seen any much change to regulations.
schiffern 2y ago
>fortunately they lost ...only after they caused a delay of 2-3 decades, directly leading to thousands of unnecessary patient deaths. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875019330402 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639...
- bugglebeetle 2y ago
  Yeah and we’re also going to end up with decades worth of dead and disabled people to end this willful ignorance/malicious stupidity. The “COVID is over” crowd already demonstrated this. Bad ideas rarely die until all or most of the people who have them do. And even then, only sometimes!
  - immibis 2y ago
    This is downvoted because it is true but inconvenient. Humans tend to prioritize feelings over facts - just like with handwashing, "if this were true, I'd have killed people, therefore it is not true."
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm very aware. I'd love to know what it'd take to skip over that part.
euroderf 2y ago
> There were doctors and surgeons against the concept of handwashing, too, but fortunately they lost. Did the thinking go something like "Every pathogen that does not kill our patients only makes them stronger"?
- schiffern 2y ago
  The controversy predates the germ theory of disease and the concept of "pathogens." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
- immibis 2y ago
  The thinking went something like "If this were true, I'd be wrong, therefore it is not true." and possibly "If this were true, I'd be responsible for killing a hundred people, therefore it is not true."
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Those are definitely dangerous patterns. Another dangerous one doesn't even perfunctorily start with "if this were true", but instead starts with dismissal as a perceived status-challenge ("Bah, why would we do a low-status thing?") > some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it The common thread in all of these, though, is not embracing a fundamental mindset of "If I'm wrong I want to know that and change and improve".
- mminer237 2y ago
  It was more thinking that made no logical sense and was a bit of personal insult. Remember, the leading scientific theory at the time was that illness was caused by bad air. It would be the same as you suggesting to your doctor today that he wouldn't have killed his patient if he was wearing more deodorant. He would both think you are completely crazy and insulting.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    If you had evidence showing that it seems to work, then whether the mechanism of action was understood yet or not, they shouldn't be perceiving it as crazy or insulting; they should be doing it, and in parallel seeking to understand it. (It's also possible for a study to be flawed, but even then, the reaction should be to do better, not to react with "crazy and insulting".)

mdp2021 2y ago

> air purification «Air purification» interpreted as "destroying all life in the air you breathe"? That would be an extraordinary claim and you would have to prove that it is a good idea. ("Air purification" can be interpreted to be about chemical and mechanical qualities, before the consideration of the living entities in the air.)

jstummbillig 2y ago
Let's go with "air purification" as in "what air purifiers are supposed to effect, as observed in the study being discussed in this thread"
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > what air purifiers are supposed to effect, as observed in the study Which would be? Have you seen details in the submitted article? I suppose this is the study (but the page is bouncing me): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024067550 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402... I have an air purifier working not two meters from me - and it is an HEPA filter with forced ventilation. Not an "air disinfectant".
  - jstummbillig 2y ago
    Per this study, the number of sick days.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      No, you got confused there. The point is "what kind of air purification" should we pursue. Correctly you wrote that it should be probably that of the study - but the submission does not say what it is... Rotating mallets? HEPA? Death rays? Carbon?
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> «Air purification» interpreted as "destroying all life in the air you breathe"? Is this sarcasm? Do you want ‘extra’ life inside your body, like tapeworms and other parasites?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > Is this sarcasm? Do you want ‘extra’ life inside your body Not at all: perfectly serious. We are in a system surrounded by living entities - some innocuous, some threatening, some helpful, some being the threatening food of helpful ones... Your body already hosts living entities that live with you symbiotic. Some of them have the extremely important role to keep the worse others at bay through geopolitical control (you remove them, the damaging ones have free course...). There are many more things around you than «tapeworms and other parasites». And they could be active part of a system (which could get unbalanced without a part). So: before stating e.g. that all other life (e.g. in the air) should be wiped out, an intellectual inquiry about the model must be given. You do not embrace what superficially sounds like a good idea.

maxerickson 2y ago

Lots of places are going to do the regulatory minimum for ventilation, and I sure haven't seen any much change to regulations.

schiffern 2y ago

>fortunately they lost ...only after they caused a delay of 2-3 decades, directly leading to thousands of unnecessary patient deaths. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875019330402 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639...

bugglebeetle 2y ago
Yeah and we’re also going to end up with decades worth of dead and disabled people to end this willful ignorance/malicious stupidity. The “COVID is over” crowd already demonstrated this. Bad ideas rarely die until all or most of the people who have them do. And even then, only sometimes!
- immibis 2y ago
  This is downvoted because it is true but inconvenient. Humans tend to prioritize feelings over facts - just like with handwashing, "if this were true, I'd have killed people, therefore it is not true."
JoshTriplett 2y ago
Yeah, I'm very aware. I'd love to know what it'd take to skip over that part.

euroderf 2y ago

> There were doctors and surgeons against the concept of handwashing, too, but fortunately they lost. Did the thinking go something like "Every pathogen that does not kill our patients only makes them stronger"?

schiffern 2y ago
The controversy predates the germ theory of disease and the concept of "pathogens." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
immibis 2y ago
The thinking went something like "If this were true, I'd be wrong, therefore it is not true." and possibly "If this were true, I'd be responsible for killing a hundred people, therefore it is not true."
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Those are definitely dangerous patterns. Another dangerous one doesn't even perfunctorily start with "if this were true", but instead starts with dismissal as a perceived status-challenge ("Bah, why would we do a low-status thing?") > some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it The common thread in all of these, though, is not embracing a fundamental mindset of "If I'm wrong I want to know that and change and improve".
mminer237 2y ago
It was more thinking that made no logical sense and was a bit of personal insult. Remember, the leading scientific theory at the time was that illness was caused by bad air. It would be the same as you suggesting to your doctor today that he wouldn't have killed his patient if he was wearing more deodorant. He would both think you are completely crazy and insulting.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  If you had evidence showing that it seems to work, then whether the mechanism of action was understood yet or not, they shouldn't be perceiving it as crazy or insulting; they should be doing it, and in parallel seeking to understand it. (It's also possible for a study to be flawed, but even then, the reaction should be to do better, not to react with "crazy and insulting".)