The new Corona virus, should we worry?

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
In an attempt to find something that gave the specifics for the northern midwest states, I realized there are several studies on masks from the last couple of months:

Qb9FYW4.png








Does this seem like a valid study to you, given what we know now in April 2021 on seasonal and regional variation?

“For all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), these data were abstracted by month for April ─ September 2020 to measure their impact on COVID-19 rates in the subsequent month (May ─ October 2020).”
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113

Ah, the devil is always in the details. Why limit the dataset? 🤔

“In this work we focus on a selection of European countries and all of the US states. In Europe, we considered countries with more than 3 million inhabitants and for which the data were available. Note that we will only consider the period from March to May 2020, during which the first wave of the COVID-19 was raging in Europe and in the US.”
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,889
Reaction score
2,559
Points
113

MN Covid-19 Update - Saturday, April 24

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive cases 529,353 +1,805. Including probable cases 566,687.

Positive test rate 4.9%.

Health-Care workers with positive cases 40,951 +99.

Cases no longer needing isolation 542,520 +2,779.

Active Cases 17,095 -684.

Deaths 6,685 +8. Including probable deaths 7,072.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 4,110 +4. Including probable cases 4,348.

Total patients hospitalized-cumulative 29,703 +114.

Total patients in ICU-cumulative 6,048 +25.

Total PCR tests processed 8,380,026 +36,920. Including antigen testing 9,044,360.

Number of people tested 3,966,377 +14,072.

 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
3,265
Points
113
The difference in deaths per million between Washington and Minnesota is similar to the difference between Minnesota and the Dakotas. Given similar population demographics, access to high level healthcare I can’t explain that other than the difference in weather and perhaps tighter protocols around LTCFs. The prevalence of obesity is roughly 5% higher in the Dakota and Iowa versus MN - factor?

Ultimately some of this may come down to luck, some to culture,s ome to increased masking, demographics, prevalence of population risk factors, vaccination rates and targeting. Too many to list?
The difference in deaths between MN and SD is twice as much as the difference between MN and WA.

Washington has some of the highest mask wearing and lowest restaurant visits, travel, etc. They’ve had restrictions almost the entire time. Some counties are still at 25% restaurant capacity, for instance. Not surprising as it’s a very liberal state.

My point, once again, is simply that human behavior is at the very least one of the reasons for the differences from state to state. It’s not just coincidence that the areas with greater mitigation efforts have generally seen lower hospitalization and death rates. It’s not the only reason but it’s a reason.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
The difference in deaths between MN and SD is twice as much as the difference between MN and WA.

Washington has some of the highest mask wearing and lowest restaurant visits, travel, etc. They’ve had restrictions almost the entire time. Some counties are still at 25% restaurant capacity, for instance. Not surprising as it’s a very liberal state.

My point, once again, is simply that human behavior is at the very least one of the reasons for the differences from state to state. It’s not just coincidence that the areas with greater mitigation efforts have generally seen lower hospitalization and death rates. It’s not the only reason but it’s a reason.

Agree on the S Dak numbers, just making generalizations. I‘m not totally disagreeing with the rest of your thoughts either, just saying the various outcomes nationwide point to a multi factorial cause rather than one or two things.

In the end, the debate should be more along the lines of whether the mitigation efforts were worth it, economically, socially, physically (spiritually?). For example, the closure of schools in many areas during non-surge periods was an enormous mistake with costs that cannot be calculated on a spreadsheet. Why is there not a greater discussion around obesity and physically/medically vulnerable individuals instead of misinformation around (oftentimes ridiculous) cloth face coverings which probably have at best marginal value and IMO gave a false sense of security to many people. Will we enforce real (and shorter) lockdowns next time, lock down international and interstate travel?

The success of the mRNA vaccines will alter our thinking as well, in terms of being amenable to real lockdowns. The problem will be getting buy-in after this fiasco.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
3,265
Points
113
What I'm saying is backed by data. What you're saying is not.

Besides that, I live in Minnesota and spent a ton of time in WI and SD over the last year. I have friends and family in both states. SD and WI have been very similar with restrictions since last summer, and have been far less restricted than MN for nearly a year now.
You’ve never shown any data around this. Parts of WI have been restricted less but not the whole state. Again I live in WI.

Masks
MN: 92.1
WI: 86.5
SD: 75.5
FE4AD53F-260D-4AE7-83C8-2DEFD6A4B852.jpeg

Restaurants
MN: 323.1
WI: 405.2
SD: 588.3
AADAD66A-8E3B-4064-88DF-B3CBDF7873EB.jpeg

Google mobility reports difference from baseline.

Retail/recreation
MN: -7%
WI: -10%
SD: +4%

Workplace
MN: -30%
WI: -24%
SD: -15%

 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
3,265
Points
113
Agree on the S Dak numbers, just making generalizations. I‘m not totally disagreeing with the rest of your thoughts either, just saying the various outcomes nationwide point to a multi factorial cause rather than one or two things.

In the end, the debate should be more along the lines of whether the mitigation efforts were worth it, economically, socially, physically (spiritually?). For example, the closure of schools in many areas during non-surge periods was an enormous mistake with costs that cannot be calculated on a spreadsheet. Why is there not a greater discussion around obesity and physically/medically vulnerable individuals instead of misinformation around (oftentimes ridiculous) cloth face coverings which probably have at best marginal value and IMO gave a false sense of security to many people. Will we enforce real (and shorter) lockdowns next time, lock down international and interstate travel?

The success of the mRNA vaccines will alter our thinking as well, in terms of being amenable to real lockdowns. The problem will be getting buy-in after this fiasco.
100% agree with this. The whole thing has been bad. Bad communication, bad decisions, etc.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
19,584
Reaction score
4,306
Points
113
You’ve never shown any data around this. Parts of WI have been restricted less but not the whole state. Again I live in WI.

Masks
MN: 92.1
WI: 86.5
SD: 75.5
View attachment 12654

Restaurants
MN: 323.1
WI: 405.2
SD: 588.3
View attachment 12655

Google mobility reports difference from baseline.

Retail/recreation
MN: -7%
WI: -10%
SD: +4%

Workplace
MN: -30%
WI: -24%
SD: -15%

Yes, but you are cherry-picking your comparisons. For example, compare WI to IL now and look at the results.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,009
Reaction score
2,653
Points
113
You’ve never shown any data around this. Parts of WI have been restricted less but not the whole state. Again I live in WI.

Masks
MN: 92.1
WI: 86.5
SD: 75.5
View attachment 12654

Restaurants
MN: 323.1
WI: 405.2
SD: 588.3
View attachment 12655

Google mobility reports difference from baseline.

Retail/recreation
MN: -7%
WI: -10%
SD: +4%

Workplace
MN: -30%
WI: -24%
SD: -15%


The last several posts I made showed the data. You're entering JTF's level of cherry picking.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,959
Reaction score
3,226
Points
113
As far as I’m concerned, this is one of the biggest lies about Trump for his entire presidency. He’s talking about UV rays and how they kill the virus. Experimental technology that was actually in the works. Inarticulate perhaps but so what? We will just lie about what he said and claim he directed people to drink bleach. This is only a dunk among the most partisan hacks.
How far you have fallen to quote mother jones. Really sad.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
3,265
Points
113
Yes, but you are cherry-picking your comparisons. For example, compare WI to IL now and look at the results.
I did this comparison because GWG said he’s been in all 3 states and that WI is similar to SD in behavior. His experience might make them seem similar but that doesn’t mean it represents the entire state. I’m posting data showing things like mask wearing, restaurant visits, overall movement, etc in WI are more similar to MN than SD. Isn’t that what you were asking for?

I’ll look into it further when I have a chance but I believe Illinois’ death numbers are pretty similar to WI’s since mitigation efforts could have had any effect. They got hit harder early on before human behavior had a chance to have a positive effect.
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
19,584
Reaction score
4,306
Points
113
I did this comparison because GWG said he’s been in all 3 states and that WI is similar to SD in behavior. His experience might make them seem similar but that doesn’t mean it represents the entire state. I’m posting data showing things like mask wearing, restaurant visits, overall movement, etc in WI are more similar to MN than SD. Isn’t that what you were asking for?

I’ll look into it further when I have a chance but I believe Illinois’ death numbers are pretty similar to WI’s since mitigation efforts could have had any effect. They got hit harder early on before human behavior had a chance to have a positive effect.
So we aren’t talking restrictions - we are talking “human behavior”.
-and-
We aren’t talking hospitalization/death data - we are talking data “since mitigation efforts could have had any effect.”

I see what is happening here, put in enough qualifiers and all the data will make sense. You can do that on your own, I’m out.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
3,265
Points
113
So we aren’t talking restrictions - we are talking “human behavior”.
-and-
We aren’t talking hospitalization/death data - we are talking data “since mitigation efforts could have had any effect.”

I see what is happening here, put in enough qualifiers and all the data will make sense. You can do that on your own, I’m out.
This whole conversation has been about human behavior (tweet GWG originally posted) and comparing behavior between MN/SD/WI (GWG bringing up his personal experience). You asked for data between those 3 states. I showed it. Then you brought up Illinois. Restrictions/mandates and human behavior usually go hand in hand for the most part. Some people just seem to have a hard time understanding that there can be local mandates/restrictions, not just state level ones.

But yeah, if we’re going to try to compare death numbers based on different human behavior, shouldn’t we compare the numbers when human behaviors were actually different? Deaths in March, April and May last year were mostly caused from spread when everyone’s behaviors were the same (normal). Since then behaviors have been different across states and areas. Differences in mask wearing, larger gatherings, etc.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,105
Reaction score
2,306
Points
113
This whole conversation has been about human behavior (tweet GWG originally posted) and comparing behavior between MN/SD/WI (GWG bringing up his personal experience). You asked for data between those 3 states. I showed it. Then you brought up Illinois. Restrictions/mandates and human behavior usually go hand in hand for the most part. Some people just seem to have a hard time understanding that there can be local mandates/restrictions, not just state level ones.

But yeah, if we’re going to try to compare death numbers based on different human behavior, shouldn’t we compare the numbers when human behaviors were actually different? Deaths in March, April and May last year were mostly caused from spread when everyone’s behaviors were the same (normal). Since then behaviors have been different across states and areas. Differences in mask wearing, larger gatherings, etc.
You are on a roll lately in the never-ending battle against mis/disinformation. Appreciate your efforts.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
10,889
Reaction score
2,559
Points
113
fun/odd fact: of the # of people tested - if we assume all of those are MN residents (which may not be true) - that would mean that just over 70% of all MN residents have had at least one covid test.


MN Covid-19 Update - Sunday, April 25

data reported by 4pm the previous day.

Positive cases 530,702 +1,355. Including probable cases 568,243.

Positive test rate 4.6%.

Health-care workers with positive cases 41,002 +51.

Cases no longer needing isolation 544,781 +2,261.

Active cases 16,383 -712.

Deaths 6,692 +7. Including probable deaths 7,079.

Deaths at long-term care and assisted living 4,115 +5. Including probable cases 4,353.

Total patients Hospitalized-cumulative 29,718 +15.

Total patients in ICU-cumulative 6,049 +1.

Total PCR tests processed 8,409,105 +29,466. Including antigen testing 9,080,354.

Number of people tested 3,979,679 +13,302.

 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,009
Reaction score
2,653
Points
113
Your last post is of a now deleted tweet. Nothing else you’ve posted has data showing human behavior.

It doesn't appear deleted to me. I've posted seasonality as the main driver many times, because it by far has the highest correlation.

You continue to push cherry picked human behavior 'data' and try to single out South Dakota. Yet you ignore other states with 'bad human behavior' that have lower death rates than Minnesota. Besides Wisconsin, you have Utah, North Carolina, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska all with less restrictions and lower death rates.
 

GophersInIowa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
27,510
Reaction score
3,265
Points
113
It doesn't appear deleted to me. I've posted seasonality as the main driver many times, because it by far has the highest correlation.

You continue to push cherry picked human behavior 'data' and try to single out South Dakota. Yet you ignore other states with 'bad human behavior' that have lower death rates than Minnesota. Besides Wisconsin, you have Utah, North Carolina, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska all with less restrictions and lower death rates.
This is the last tweet you posted.
66F566D6-373C-46B8-AE61-09F1C4CD5C50.jpeg
If you’re talking about the previous one that just shows cases peaked around the same time this winter in Midwest states, once again that doesn’t show the differences in severity. Even if it is seasonal, that doesn’t mean behaviors can’t affect the severity.

You bring up SD more than anyone when discussing WI. You’ve stated 20 times that you travel to both states. The data shows behaviors in WI are more similar to MN than SD.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
MIT study says 6 foot distancing is no better than 60 foot distancing, opening windows and using fans is as effective as air filtration systems, and there’s no reason to wear masks outside if you have a 3 foot social distance.

Someone needs to tell Dr. Fauci.

CNBC article:

The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

MIT professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.

“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks,” Bazant said in an interview. “It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”

The important variable the CDC and the WHO have overlooked is the amount of time spent indoors, Bazant said. The longer someone is inside with an infected person, the greater the chance of transmission, he said.

Opening windows or installing new fans to keep the air moving could also be just as effective or more effective than spending large amounts of money on a new filtration system, he said.

Bazant also says that guidelines enforcing indoor occupancy caps are flawed. He said 20 people gathered inside for 1 minute is probably fine, but not over the course of several hours, he said.

“What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be. Often times the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good,” Bazant said. “I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions.”
Six-feet social distancing rules that inadvertently result in closed businesses and schools are “just not reasonable,” according to Bazant.
“This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. The CDC or WHO have never really provided justification for it, they’ve just said this is what you must do and the only justification I’m aware of, is based on studies of coughs and sneezes, where they look at the largest particles that might sediment onto the floor and even then it’s very approximate, you can certainly have longer or shorter range, large droplets,” Bazant said.
“The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually,” he noted.


Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air indoors when people talk, breathe or eat. It is now known that airborne transmission plays a huge role in the spread of Covid-19, compared with the earlier months of the pandemic where hand-washing was considered the leading recommendation to avoid transmission.

Those droplets from one’s warm exhalation mix with body heat and air currents in the area to rise and travel throughout the entire room, no matter how socially distanced a person is. People seem to be more exposed to that “background” air than they are by droplets from a distance, according to the study.
For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 is wearing a mask and singing loudly in an enclosed room, a person who is sitting at the other side of the room is not more protected than someone who is sitting just six feet away from the infected person. This is why time spent in the enclosed area is more important than how far you are from the infected person.
Masks work in general to prevent transmission by blocking larger droplets, therefore larger droplets aren’t making up the majority of Covid infections because most people are wearing masks. The majority of people who are transmitting Covid aren’t coughing and sneezing, they’re asymptomatic.
Masks also work to prevent indoor transmission by blocking direct plumes of air, best visualized by imagining someone exhaling smoke. Constant exposure to direct plumes of infectious air would result in a higher risk of transmission, though exposure to direct plumes of exhaled air doesn’t usually last long.
Even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers. The same logic applies to infectious airborne droplets, according to the study. When indoors and masked, factors besides distance can be more important to consider to avoid transmission.

As for social distancing outdoors, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing so with masks on is “kind of crazy.”
“If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission.” he said. “Crowded spaces outdoor could be an issue, but if people are keeping a reasonable distance of like 3 feet outside, I feel pretty comfortable with that even without masks frankly.”
Bazant says this could possibly explain why there haven’t been spikes in transmission in states like Texas or Florida that have reopened businesses without capacity limits.


As for variant strains that are 60% more transmissible, increasing ventilation by 60%, reducing the amount of time spent inside or limiting the number of people indoors could offset that risk.
Bazant also said that a big question that is coming will be when masks can be removed, and that the study’s guidelines can help quantify the risks involved. He also noted that measuring carbon dioxide in a room can also help quantify how much infected air is present and hence risk of transmission.
“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fearmongering but is actually based in analysis,” Bazant said. After three rounds of heavy peer review, he said it’s the most review he’s ever been through, and that now that it’s published he hopes it will influence policy.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
It doesn't appear deleted to me. I've posted seasonality as the main driver many times, because it by far has the highest correlation.

You continue to push cherry picked human behavior 'data' and try to single out South Dakota. Yet you ignore other states with 'bad human behavior' that have lower death rates than Minnesota. Besides Wisconsin, you have Utah, North Carolina, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska all with less restrictions and lower death rates.

Utah is an interesting case vs the Dakotas. the Wasatch front metroplex is fairly population dense and clearly many there are devout evangelicals. SLC is more of a diverse area but heavy on athletically minded migrants from other parts of the US, and new ager types. The Mormons also espouse a clean lifestyle. Overall the diabetes, obesity rates are lower than the US average.

Despite one of the highest case rates in the nation the Utahans have amongst the lowest death rates. Divine intervention, or something else?
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
9,009
Reaction score
2,653
Points
113
Utah is an interesting case vs the Dakotas. the Wasatch front metroplex is fairly population dense and clearly many there are devout evangelicals. SLC is more of a diverse area but heavy on athletically minded migrants from other parts of the US, and new ager types. The Mormons also espouse a clean lifestyle. Overall the diabetes, obesity rates are lower than the US average.

Despite one of the highest case rates in the nation the Utahans have amongst the lowest death rates. Divine intervention, or something else?
You already eluded to the answer in your post
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
13,788
Reaction score
4,387
Points
113
MIT study says 6 foot distancing is no better than 60 foot distancing, opening windows and using fans is as effective as air filtration systems, and there’s no reason to wear masks outside if you have a 3 foot social distance.

Someone needs to tell Dr. Fauci.

CNBC article:

The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

MIT professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.

“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks,” Bazant said in an interview. “It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”

The important variable the CDC and the WHO have overlooked is the amount of time spent indoors, Bazant said. The longer someone is inside with an infected person, the greater the chance of transmission, he said.

Opening windows or installing new fans to keep the air moving could also be just as effective or more effective than spending large amounts of money on a new filtration system, he said.

Bazant also says that guidelines enforcing indoor occupancy caps are flawed. He said 20 people gathered inside for 1 minute is probably fine, but not over the course of several hours, he said.

“What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be. Often times the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good,” Bazant said. “I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions.”
Six-feet social distancing rules that inadvertently result in closed businesses and schools are “just not reasonable,” according to Bazant.
“This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. The CDC or WHO have never really provided justification for it, they’ve just said this is what you must do and the only justification I’m aware of, is based on studies of coughs and sneezes, where they look at the largest particles that might sediment onto the floor and even then it’s very approximate, you can certainly have longer or shorter range, large droplets,” Bazant said.
“The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually,” he noted.


Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air indoors when people talk, breathe or eat. It is now known that airborne transmission plays a huge role in the spread of Covid-19, compared with the earlier months of the pandemic where hand-washing was considered the leading recommendation to avoid transmission.

Those droplets from one’s warm exhalation mix with body heat and air currents in the area to rise and travel throughout the entire room, no matter how socially distanced a person is. People seem to be more exposed to that “background” air than they are by droplets from a distance, according to the study.
For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 is wearing a mask and singing loudly in an enclosed room, a person who is sitting at the other side of the room is not more protected than someone who is sitting just six feet away from the infected person. This is why time spent in the enclosed area is more important than how far you are from the infected person.
Masks work in general to prevent transmission by blocking larger droplets, therefore larger droplets aren’t making up the majority of Covid infections because most people are wearing masks. The majority of people who are transmitting Covid aren’t coughing and sneezing, they’re asymptomatic.
Masks also work to prevent indoor transmission by blocking direct plumes of air, best visualized by imagining someone exhaling smoke. Constant exposure to direct plumes of infectious air would result in a higher risk of transmission, though exposure to direct plumes of exhaled air doesn’t usually last long.
Even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers. The same logic applies to infectious airborne droplets, according to the study. When indoors and masked, factors besides distance can be more important to consider to avoid transmission.

As for social distancing outdoors, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing so with masks on is “kind of crazy.”
“If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission.” he said. “Crowded spaces outdoor could be an issue, but if people are keeping a reasonable distance of like 3 feet outside, I feel pretty comfortable with that even without masks frankly.”
Bazant says this could possibly explain why there haven’t been spikes in transmission in states like Texas or Florida that have reopened businesses without capacity limits.


As for variant strains that are 60% more transmissible, increasing ventilation by 60%, reducing the amount of time spent inside or limiting the number of people indoors could offset that risk.
Bazant also said that a big question that is coming will be when masks can be removed, and that the study’s guidelines can help quantify the risks involved. He also noted that measuring carbon dioxide in a room can also help quantify how much infected air is present and hence risk of transmission.
“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fearmongering but is actually based in analysis,” Bazant said. After three rounds of heavy peer review, he said it’s the most review he’s ever been through, and that now that it’s published he hopes it will influence policy.
So what you're saying is that spending lots of time in restaurants is dangerous
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
19,451
Reaction score
2,754
Points
113
So what you're saying is that spending lots of time in restaurants is dangerous
I’m not saying anything. MIT scientists are saying “the science” we’ve been told to follow is WRONG. And apparently, there’s a lot we didn’t know.
Social distancing hasn’t been effective indoors and doesn’t decrease your chances of contracting Covid.
Indoors isn’t bad unless it’s for extended periods.
Masks have limited mitigating effectiveness, but are ridiculous outside if you’re 3 foot or more from someone.
Some of our “scientists” have been very wrong and fearmongering has been a political tool to control the public.
The CDC has also said that picking up Covid is a 1 in 10K chance.

Lots of things that “the science” wasn’t really telling us about a year ago that scientists said it was.
 

Pompous Elitist

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
16,851
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
I’m not saying anything. MIT scientists are saying “the science” we’ve been told to follow is WRONG. And apparently, there’s a lot we didn’t know.
Social distancing hasn’t been effective indoors and doesn’t decrease your chances of contracting Covid.
Indoors isn’t bad unless it’s for extended periods.
Masks have limited mitigating effectiveness, but are ridiculous outside if you’re 3 foot or more from someone.
Some of our “scientists” have been very wrong and fearmongering has been a political tool to control the public.
The CDC has also said that picking up Covid is a 1 in 10K chance.

Lots of things that “the science” wasn’t really telling us about a year ago that scientists said it was.

The evidence for COV2 being truly “airborne” vs aerosol spread is pretty weak and mostly anecdotal, without accounting for indoor air currents. This study doesn’t meet the common sense test IMO. If, as the authors assume, 10 free-floating virions is the infectious dose the spread of this disease would be ludicrously bad, far worse than we’ve seen. Millions of health care workers and other essential workers, family members have inhabited indoor spaces without great ventilation with COV+ persons for minutes, hours, days with nothing more than a surgical mask (or worse) for protection and have successfully avoided infection. The right distance probably varies based on ventilation, air currents but personally I’m enjoying the lack of B.O., halitosis, and pastrami odors. I’m good with 3-6 feet.

From the study:

“By synthesizing available data from the best-characterized indoor spreading events with respiratory drop size distributions, we estimate an infectious dose on the order of 10 aerosol-borne virions.”

 
Top Bottom