5 ms·

Spread through drainpipes isn't some theory I made up, it's the conclusion of investigations into how SARS-1 spread in Hong Kong. The drains in questions were f

Spread through drainpipes isn't some theory I made up, it's the conclusion of investigations into how SARS-1 spread in Hong Kong. The drains in questions were floor drains, so presumably had didn't have per-apartment traps in that case. At any rate, if you think it's obviously wrong then take it up with the people who wrote the paper I cited. The bigger problem is probably not floor drains of course but air ducts, hallways and other building areas that expose the uninfected to aerosols hanging in the air in ways that masks won't affect because people don't wear them at home. I get the impression from your other post you may have been making your family wear respirators, perhaps even at home. If so then yes, this message will be hard to hear, but it's not generalized stupidity amongst the population that we didn't all follow you in that. It's that the droplet model of spread was invalidated very early on and the immediate failure of mask mandates confirmed what was happening. Respirators with valves are especially incompatible with either model, and in fact got banned pretty early on where I live. You had to use masks without valves.

mindslight 4y ago
I wasn't disputing the validity of that study [0]. I was pointing out that it's exceptional to have air flowing through your drains, and knocking down your ridiculous hyperbole of "gas masks". As I said, air filtration and biological isolation in general are engineering problems. The modern world is built on dragging problems into boring terms we can coldly analyze. What you're doing is jumping between red herrings and then coming to the conclusion that the problem is intractable. The nonsense train continues with the strawman "you may have been making your family wear respirators, perhaps even at home". Obviously, at least if you're thinking prudently, you define your groups of people you have regular close contact with where transmission is likely a foregone conclusion. You don't take a public health recommendation to wear a mask, extrapolate that as if it's a suggestion to wear them at home in bed etc, figure that's ridiculous, throw your hands up, and then turn to Facebook for validation. Your quick jump to this apparent meme really just demonstrates how far from rationality you are. [0] I also wasn't agreeing with it - I just don't see a reason to read it. Sure, I'll believe that can happen.
- origin_path 4y ago
  your ridiculous hyperbole of "gas masks". It's not hyperbole. Aerosols are very hard to filter and can even enter via the eyeballs. Maybe proper military grade gas masks can keep them out, I don't know, I don't think there's been much study of that. On the other hand good airflow seems more important. Very few cases were traced to planes and outdoor events. "What you're doing is jumping between red herrings and then coming to the conclusion that the problem is intractable." No, we never talked about whether the problem is tractable in theory. I started by pointing out that mask mandates didn't work. You then took the position that they would have worked if only everyone had worn respirators instead, which I pointed out is also wrong. Now you've moved the goalposts to some sort of theoretical exercise in which a solution might exist, one day. Could we reduce flu and COVID levels by re-engineering existing buildings to have biolab-like air handling equipment? Probably! Was it possible to have done that during COVID itself? No. Is it reasonable to do that going forward? Very unlikely to have a good cost/benefit ratio, no. "You don't take a public health recommendation to wear a mask, extrapolate that as if it's a suggestion to wear them at home in bed etc, figure that's ridiculous, throw your hands up, and then turn to Facebook for validation" I never mentioned Facebook. I've been citing data from real world outbreaks and scientific journals, not memes from Facebook. The public health recommendation to wear masks was in fact ridiculous given what was known at that point (and still is), because it could not have worked. In 2020/2021/2022 we do not have any way to stop a pandemic caused by an aerosolized respiratory virus. Maybe one day we will, sure. If you want to try and research ways to do that, go right ahead, but masks or respirators of any kind aren't going to play a part in a solution.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    You're crucially ignoring the concept of viral load, which keeps you following red herrings about what "might" occur. I've yet to see any indication that common N100 respirators are ineffective at removing most viral particles, even independent of droplets. The sizes are within the same realm, and the particle size N100's are tested at isn't some hard cutoff, but rather representative of a soft probability distribution. Obviously being outside and distanced is better than being close to people with a respirator, but once again this is not an either/or. It's about mitigation of situations you have to go through. If you're concerned about your eyes, full face respirators are available. It's ridiculous to throw up your hands and say because infection through the eyes is a possibility, doing anything else is pointless. Once again, viral load indicates the need for smooth probabilistic analysis rather than binary exposed-or-not. FWIW I haven't argued that anything should be mandated. It seems like you're balling up many orthogonal issues together, and then attacking the whole ball, often with the most outlandish strawmen interpretation of them. I mentioned Facebook because clearly some kind of social media is supplying energy to these harmful memes that have put you at odds with basic reasoning and prudence.

mindslight 4y ago

I wasn't disputing the validity of that study [0]. I was pointing out that it's exceptional to have air flowing through your drains, and knocking down your ridiculous hyperbole of "gas masks". As I said, air filtration and biological isolation in general are engineering problems. The modern world is built on dragging problems into boring terms we can coldly analyze. What you're doing is jumping between red herrings and then coming to the conclusion that the problem is intractable. The nonsense train continues with the strawman "you may have been making your family wear respirators, perhaps even at home". Obviously, at least if you're thinking prudently, you define your groups of people you have regular close contact with where transmission is likely a foregone conclusion. You don't take a public health recommendation to wear a mask, extrapolate that as if it's a suggestion to wear them at home in bed etc, figure that's ridiculous, throw your hands up, and then turn to Facebook for validation. Your quick jump to this apparent meme really just demonstrates how far from rationality you are. [0] I also wasn't agreeing with it - I just don't see a reason to read it. Sure, I'll believe that can happen.

origin_path 4y ago
your ridiculous hyperbole of "gas masks". It's not hyperbole. Aerosols are very hard to filter and can even enter via the eyeballs. Maybe proper military grade gas masks can keep them out, I don't know, I don't think there's been much study of that. On the other hand good airflow seems more important. Very few cases were traced to planes and outdoor events. "What you're doing is jumping between red herrings and then coming to the conclusion that the problem is intractable." No, we never talked about whether the problem is tractable in theory. I started by pointing out that mask mandates didn't work. You then took the position that they would have worked if only everyone had worn respirators instead, which I pointed out is also wrong. Now you've moved the goalposts to some sort of theoretical exercise in which a solution might exist, one day. Could we reduce flu and COVID levels by re-engineering existing buildings to have biolab-like air handling equipment? Probably! Was it possible to have done that during COVID itself? No. Is it reasonable to do that going forward? Very unlikely to have a good cost/benefit ratio, no. "You don't take a public health recommendation to wear a mask, extrapolate that as if it's a suggestion to wear them at home in bed etc, figure that's ridiculous, throw your hands up, and then turn to Facebook for validation" I never mentioned Facebook. I've been citing data from real world outbreaks and scientific journals, not memes from Facebook. The public health recommendation to wear masks was in fact ridiculous given what was known at that point (and still is), because it could not have worked. In 2020/2021/2022 we do not have any way to stop a pandemic caused by an aerosolized respiratory virus. Maybe one day we will, sure. If you want to try and research ways to do that, go right ahead, but masks or respirators of any kind aren't going to play a part in a solution.
- mindslight 4y ago
  You're crucially ignoring the concept of viral load, which keeps you following red herrings about what "might" occur. I've yet to see any indication that common N100 respirators are ineffective at removing most viral particles, even independent of droplets. The sizes are within the same realm, and the particle size N100's are tested at isn't some hard cutoff, but rather representative of a soft probability distribution. Obviously being outside and distanced is better than being close to people with a respirator, but once again this is not an either/or. It's about mitigation of situations you have to go through. If you're concerned about your eyes, full face respirators are available. It's ridiculous to throw up your hands and say because infection through the eyes is a possibility, doing anything else is pointless. Once again, viral load indicates the need for smooth probabilistic analysis rather than binary exposed-or-not. FWIW I haven't argued that anything should be mandated. It seems like you're balling up many orthogonal issues together, and then attacking the whole ball, often with the most outlandish strawmen interpretation of them. I mentioned Facebook because clearly some kind of social media is supplying energy to these harmful memes that have put you at odds with basic reasoning and prudence.