social distancing and common sense

[Arizona Kid]

On 5/10/2020 at 11:16 AM, peterfe said:

That brings me to my point about common sense

Common sense is not so common.

Mark Twain.

[intrepid]

Is this how to do "Social Distancing" or "Physical Distancing"? Or is this just the new cue system?

 

 

[Mike J]

13 hours ago, intrepid said:

Is this how to do "Social Distancing" or "Physical Distancing"? Or is this just the new cue system?

This system is being used in Moalboal at many of the places that are still open.  Also common is a rope or ribbon stretched in front of counters an arms length back.  Payment and change are being exchanged via small baskets.

[Tommy T.]

On 5/10/2020 at 12:06 PM, GeoffH said:

I think some consensis exists that points to droplet spreading being the primary vector but I haven't seen any studies around how likely aerosol spreading is to cause infections if it exists with SARS-Cov-19.

There are some guidelines around time of exposure (in Australia that's currently 15 minutes nearby to an infected person and then the Covid Safe app on your phone will activate) but from what I've been able to gather that's more based around viruses that are known to spread by aerosol infection.

I think it's premature to assume that the risk is 'extremely small' and I suspect that if it is a factor in infection then it would vary with time of exposure and the environment you were in.

A small enclosed area eg a taxi with an infected driver and a 30 minute taxi journey should be a higher risk than a 5 minute shop visit with an infected shop assistant.

Does this sound familiar, Geoff?... Found this online a few minutes ago at MSNBC...

 

>Simply talking in confined environments could lead to coronavirus transmission, researchers say

Jessica Flores, USA TODAY

5 hrs ago

The droplets from simply talking can be enough to spread the coronavirus, according to researchers.

By using lasers, scientists found that one minute of talking loudly can produce more than 1,000 virus-containing droplets that could linger in the air for over 8 minutes, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

As states continue to gradually reopen, scientists fear that reopening too soon could worsen the virus outbreak. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified in front of a Senate panel Tuesday and said the consequences for states reopening without following proper guidelines "could be really serious."

The study says because droplets that exist in an asymptomatic person's mouth can carry respiratory pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2, "there is a substantial probability that normal speaking causes airborne virus transmission in confined environments," the authors wrote.

"This study builds on earlier research by the same team showing that speaking may factor into transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and adds support to the importance of wearing a mask, as recommended by the CDC, in potentially helping to slow the spread of the virus," a spokesperson the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases told USA TODAY.

Erin Bromage, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, recently published a blog post that went viral explaining the high-risk environments that could lead to COVID-19 infections.

The list includes workplaces, public transport, social gatherings, restaurants and a person's home, which account for 90% of the transmission events, Bromage writes.

"The reason to highlight these different outbreaks is to show you the commonality of outbreaks of COVID-19. All these infection events were indoors, with people closely-spaced, with lots of talking, singing, or yelling," Bromage writes, referring to the different cases he references that have occurred throughout the nation.

In an interview with CNN's New Day, Bromage said there are certain spaces people should avoid as states reopen. 

"Any workplace or any environment that is not maintaining a reasonable number of people, that doesn't have good air flow, where everything is being circulated, and if it's noisy, that is a spot where I'd say I don't need to be in here or I don't need to be in here that long," Bromage said.<

[Mike J]

1 minute ago, Tommy T. said:

The droplets from simply talking can be enough to spread the coronavirus, according to researchers.

That's why I don't talk much. 

[GeoffH]

18 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

The droplets from simply talking can be enough to spread the coronavirus, according to researchers.

By using lasers, scientists found that one minute of talking loudly can produce more than 1,000 virus-containing droplets that could linger in the air for over 8 minutes, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

 

Yes it does sound familiar and is related to one of the 'simplifications' I was trying to avoid bringing up.

I know I have the impression in my earlier post that there are 'big droplets' and 'small aerosolized' virus carrying blobs of liquid carrying virus.

But the truth is there is a whole range of sizes, not just big and little and I've seen references that say that smaller droplets can be ejected when talking (at least some of the time) and smaller droplets tend to float for longer before landing on a surface (I don't know a time frame but I have no reason to disbelieve the 8 minute number).

 

I was just trying to avoid muddying the waters when explaining the two terms Tommy, sorry.

[Tommy T.]

4 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

I was just trying to avoid muddying the waters when explaining the two terms Tommy, sorry.

Geoff... no need at all for sorry! I read this article and, from my viewpoint, it supports your comments - especially the last half of them say what this article says but in fewer words. Carry on, my friend!

[Dave Hounddriver]

6 hours ago, Tommy T. said:

The droplets from simply talking can be enough to spread the coronavirus, according to researchers.

Old news in Canada.  Our Prime Minister told us weeks ago to avoid "wet speech".  So we no longer talk about the precipitation or the petunias and pansys

[Mike J]

5 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

Old news in Canada.  Our Prime Minister told us weeks ago to avoid "wet speech".  So we no longer talk about the precipitation or the petunias and pansys

In the US as kids the term was "say it, don't spray it".  

[Tommy T.]

As most of you, I have watched a lot of TV news and perused the internet too for different viewpoints regarding the virus and current events (like locust infestation, food shortages, bizarre conspiracy theories, economic meltdown, mis-, mal-. and nonfeasance of various elected and non-elected officials, graft, and on and on).

Something I find interesting and also disturbing is the use - or abuse - of face masks. I see photos all the time of U.S. reps and senators wandering around with their masks over their mouths but not their noses. So what good is this? I see that same thing in news clips here too.

I watched the extensive coverage of the whistle blower - Dr. Bright - as he was questioned by congressmen last night (our time). Of course, the various members dropped their masks when speaking as they were very far apart, and the good doctor did not wear one at all since he was also at quite a distance. But I noticed several of the members adjusting their masks by pulling them up by the nose section (fingers inside as well as outside the masks) while wearing their "protective" rubber gloves. I guess they thought that the gloves would protect them from contaminating their masks? And some of them were touching their mouths, nose and/or eyes with their gloved hands... WTF? No clue... and they are running the country?

Yeah... maybe it's a small point and I am picking on them? But both L and I have seen this in news coverage and in person all too often. It appears that, even though masks seem to be mostly widely available (even though so many are next to useless surgical masks or bandannas?), most people don't know how to wear them and adjust them correctly to protect themselves and others. I have seen some online articles addressing this issue, but wonder how many people take the time to take a squiz at them?

By the way, the behaviour of most of the reps in the hearing seemed like a bad joke. They came into the chamber, sat down, expounded on their personal agendas, maybe asked a few questions (some much better than others), then left after their time was over. They did not appear interested in listening to the entire testimony - rather, it was more a media moment for most of them to make their little speeches to get them "on the record." This could also have been planned to preserve social distancing? So I will concede to that. But, as usual with a lot of elected officials in hearings, a number of them would ask questions, then not allow time for the respondent to reply? They just liked the sound of their own voices...

Sorry... just sort of a mini-rant that was irritating me. I feel better now...

Edited May 15, 2020 by Tommy T.