Social Distancing Does Not Work (MIT)

[TeeJay]

Whether you stand 6 feet apart or 60 feet apart there is no difference according to MIT.
Social distancing does not work indoors.
So wearing a mask is nothing more than pointless as you can not keep it on all the time.

A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19

Airborne transmission arises through the inhalation of aerosol droplets exhaled by an infected person and is now thought to be the primary transmission route of COVID-19. By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space, we derive a simple safety guideline...

www.pnas.org

 

[JuanGoodman]

Breaking News.

Scientists say that the best way to keep yourself and others safe while social distancing, in a line up to get into a store or to a cashier, is to spin around in one spot as you wait your turn. Scientists have found that spinning around creates a vortex of air that will carry the

virus away from you and others as well.

Watch out for an official announcement recommending mandatory spinning while waiting in line. Premier Ford to speak on Monday.

Stay safe my friends.

 

[NotADcotor]

Whether you stand 6 feet apart or 60 feet apart there is no difference according to MIT.
Social distancing does not work indoors.
So wearing a mask is nothing more than pointless as you can not keep it on all the time.

A guideline to limit indoor airborne transmission of COVID-19

Airborne transmission arises through the inhalation of aerosol droplets exhaled by an infected person and is now thought to be the primary transmission route of COVID-19. By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space, we derive a simple safety guideline...

www.pnas.org

You might want to read the article again. You didn't understand it the first time around.

The current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space.

So they are not referring to the droplets that are sufficiently big to not be mixed through an air space for which the 6 foot rule does apply.

Classic TJ et al, posting shit they either have not read closely or at all. I find the anti vaccines on facebook I know do the same thing all the time. They will share stuff that actually supports vaccines [or oppose their views on other areas] One guy posted a bunch of links on terb and all the government ones said the opposite of what he claimed.

There really should be a rule about this but it would be a huge PITA factor to enforce... almost as much of a PITA as people who post shit that doesn't support their position.

It's a bit like saying duck and cover doesn't work, because at ground 0 you will be dead anyway and even if you survive the mutant zombie bikers will kill you. However further out from ground 0 is can prevent you from being hurt, or hurt more and in more limited nuke situations [terrorism, NK] the MZB thing isn't really a worry.

 

[PeteOsborne]

You might want to read the article again. You didn't understand it the first time around.

The current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space.

So they are not referring to the droplets that are sufficiently big to not be mixed through an air space for which the 6 foot rule does apply.

Classic TJ et al, posting shit they either have not read closely or at all. I find the anti vaccines on facebook I know do the same thing all the time. They will share stuff that actually supports vaccines [or oppose their views on other areas] One guy posted a bunch of links on terb and all the government ones said the opposite of what he claimed.

There really should be a rule about this but it would be a huge PITA factor to enforce... almost as much of a PITA as people who post shit that doesn't support their position.

It's a bit like saying duck and cover doesn't work, because at ground 0 you will be dead anyway and even if you survive the mutant zombie bikers will kill you. However further out from ground 0 is can prevent you from being hurt, or hurt more and in more limited nuke situations [terrorism, NK] the MZB thing isn't really a worry.

I agree he should read it again, the study is based on what would happen if an unmasked infected person was in a room with other masked people.
And since he was away he should also check this thread.
https://terb.cc/xenforo/threads/texas-covid-cases-going-down-after-relaxing-mask-law.743754/page-12
Start with post #224

 

[Valcazar]

You might want to read the article again. You didn't understand it the first time around.

The current revival of the American economy is being predicated on social distancing, specifically the Six-Foot Rule, a guideline that offers little protection from pathogen-bearing aerosol droplets sufficiently small to be continuously mixed through an indoor space.

So they are not referring to the droplets that are sufficiently big to not be mixed through an air space for which the 6 foot rule does apply.

Right, but the point of it is that COVID-19 is the aerosol case. There was good reason to assume it was droplet early, but the evidence shows it is not.

The part where you want to point out that he didn't read and understand is this part: "So wearing a mask is nothing more than pointless as you can not keep it on all the time."

From the paper:

To minimize risk of infection, one should avoid spending extended periods in highly populated areas. One is safer in rooms with large volume and high ventilation rates. One is at greater risk in rooms where people are exerting themselves in such a way as to increase their respiration rate and pathogen output, for example, by exercising, singing, or shouting. Since the rate of inhalation of contagion depends on the volume flux of both the exhalation of the infected individual and the inhalation of the susceptible person, the risk of infection increases as Q2b. Likewise, masks worn by both infected and susceptible persons will reduce the risk of transmission by a factor p2m, a dramatic effect given that pm≤0.1 for moderately high-quality masks.

They go on.

the benefit of face masks is immediately apparent, since the CET limit is enhanced by [...] the inverse square of the mask penetration factor. Standard surgical masks are characterized by pm=1to5%, and so allow the CET to be extended by 400 to 10,000 times. Even cloth face coverings would extend the CET limit by 6 to 100 times for hybrid fabrics (pm=10to40%) or 1.5 to 6 times for single-layer fabrics (pm=40to80%). Our inference of the efficacy of face masks in mitigating airborne transmission is roughly consistent with studies showing the benefits of mask use on COVID-19 transmission at the scales of both cities and countries

 

[PeteOsborne]

Right, but the point of it is that COVID-19 is the aerosol case. There was good reason to assume it was droplet early, but the evidence shows it is not.

The part where you want to point out that he didn't read and understand is this part: "So wearing a mask is nothing more than pointless as you can not keep it on all the time."

From the paper:



They go on.

Also"
." Their analysis is based on the fact that in enclosed spaces, tiny airborne pathogen-bearing droplets emitted by people (not wearing masks) as they talk, cough, sneeze, sing, or eat will tend to float in the air for long periods and to be well-mixed throughout the space by air currents."
Also some statements made about masks in their study as well.
"Early in the pandemic, there was less appreciation for the importance of ventilation systems and the use of face masks, which can dramatically affect the safe levels of occupancy, he says."
"For example, they found that while improved ventilation systems and face mask use make a big difference, air filtration systems have a relatively smaller effect on disease spread."

 

[JuanGoodman]

Serious question folks.

If the virus " will tend to float in the air for long periods and to be well-mixed throughout the space by air currents." Doesn't it stick to our hair, our clothes, our masks. Don't we then bring the virus home with us?

 

[Valcazar]

Serious question folks.

If the virus " will tend to float in the air for long periods and to be well-mixed throughout the space by air currents." Doesn't it stick to our hair, our clothes, our masks. Don't we then bring the virus home with us?

Not much from what I've been able to see. Because it floats, it tends to follow the air currents and those tend to bend around us. Like bugs hitting a windshield. When you go slow, the bug deflects. You have to go fast enough that the air stream slams into you instead of bending. I think in general we don't move that fast.

I'd love to see a study where someone actually took some modeling to it, though.

 

[basketcase]

Yes, when walking outside you may end up breathing in some virus particles breathed out by an infected person. Thankfully the chances of (and seriousness of) infection depends significantly on the viral load. The more of the virus you inhale or touch mucus membranes, the more chance you have of becoming sick.

Studies have also discovered that surface contact isn't a big spreader of covid so unless you're licking tables and inhaling your clothes, you likely have nothing to worry about from the occasional moisture droplet that touches your clothes.

 

[TeeJay]

Serious question folks.

If the virus " will tend to float in the air for long periods and to be well-mixed throughout the space by air currents." Doesn't it stick to our hair, our clothes, our masks. Don't we then bring the virus home with us?

Surface transmission is ridiculously low
Less than 1 in 10,000 according to CDC