A room, a bar and a class: how the coronavirus is spread through the air

[Eddy Edson]

Nice explanation and visualisations.

A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air

The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure

english.elpais.com

 

[Greys]

A good read this. My partner forwarded this article to me and I've just read it.

 

[mikeyB]

I read the article.
In summary.
Don't breathe (too much), keep your mouth shut, avoid talking, certainly don't shout or sing, avoid socializing.

This isn't living, it's just not dying.

This is how mankind has built immunity from viruses, it's called life.

What effect is this all having on our long term immunity, are we going to end up vulnerable to every virus.

Personally, I don't wish to acquire immunity to COVID-19, except by vaccination. I will continue wearing a mask if anyone calls, maintain a sensible distance and remain antisocial. I don't sing or shout except at football, and I rather like the idea of not dying.

And I'm quite confident this will not have the slightest effect on my long term immunity to anything. By definition, it's long term, and wearing a mask or avoiding groups will not have the slightest effect, or make me more vulnerable to viruses. I know this because i know how the immune system works. You don't, so don't worry.

Just a final point. Manind hasn't acquired immunity to viruses. Only individuals do that. You come into the world with no long term immunity to anything. That's why we immunise babies against rotavirus very early, and the other formerly killing viruses and bacteria later.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It's a lovely animation and explanation, but there's significant doubt in the twittersphere about whether it's all that accurate.

 

[Eddy Edson]

It's a lovely animation and explanation, but there's significant doubt in the twittersphere about whether it's all that accurate.

Interesting. The virology types I follow seem to think it's pretty cool, generally.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Interesting. The virology types I follow seem to think it's pretty cool, generally.

Though now I see this thread from Carl Bergstrom, which is interesting:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1321726379608563714

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Please tell us more, why?

I think the thread that @Eddy Edson posted covers it (though I read others). The numbers are only plausible if the infected person in each case is a super spreader. (In the first case, if that number of people were infected in that situation you'd expect household infections (where people normally don't wear masks) to be much more effective than they are (which is apparently up to around 30%)). So the advice is fine (reducing risk can involve improving ventilation, reducing time, using masks, etc.) but the rather specific numbers they give probably aren't that realistic.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Anyway, just to tie this up, a thread from the lead researcher responding to some of the commentary:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1321957735055851522

11/ So we know infectivity of infected people is hugely variable. So we don't expect the same infection everywhere. The model simulates favorable infectivity for an outbreak. Which I'd argue, is what's most interesting and important to simulate.

In other words, as I understand it: Yep, this piece refers to "superspreader" events, or at any rate, *how* infection => an outbreak, *when* it does so. Which is highly variable, including dependance on what stage of the disease course the spreader is at at (unfortunately, earlier = worse).