The NFL came up with a "three-of-four" metric. If you're not a group of vaccinated people, then it basically means you need to meet three of the following four: 1) limited duration, 2) ventilation (outdoors), 3) distancing, 4) masks
The NYT recently came out with a graphic that is similar, but two-of-three: 1) outdoors, 2) distancing, 3), masks
Wow this study says lockdowns don't work, social distancing doesn't work, and masks help a little under ideal circumstances (real circumstances not studied). I'm surprised to see a study that admits these things here on HN.
This is literally what "COVID deniers" have been saying since the lockdowns started. Yes, some people are extreme about the masks, but the lockdowns have always been the most serious infraction on our liberties and lives.
I wonder how many people died of induced mental or economic despair due to the lockdowns, which are still in place in some places, a year later, when we have ample evidence that their only effect is the destruction of livelihoods, especially of small business owners.
The paper seems to be making an assumption that the air is "well mixed." I don't see how that holds unless there is no ventilation whatsoever, in which case, CO2 levels will build up to dangerous levels. In the two restaurant case studies I've seen with transmission beyond 6 feet, there is a clear effect of fans moving air from one person to another in the pattern of who gets infected and who doesn't. I haven't seen a documented case of transmission beyond 20 feet.
Yes, it's probably technically possible to transmit COVID from a 60 foot distance, but the probability is much less, and it's inaccurate to say that you're no safer at 60 feet than 6 feet.
Right, the question is how fast it mixes into a large volume vs. how fast it's removed by ventilation. Personally I'm on the very conservative side when it comes to things like this, but if you're talking about relative risk, 60 feet is certainly much less risky than 6 feet, contrary to the article.
8 comments
[ 7.4 ms ] story [ 48.5 ms ] threadSee also: https://indoor-covid-safety.herokuapp.com/
The NYT recently came out with a graphic that is similar, but two-of-three: 1) outdoors, 2) distancing, 3), masks
This is literally what "COVID deniers" have been saying since the lockdowns started. Yes, some people are extreme about the masks, but the lockdowns have always been the most serious infraction on our liberties and lives.
I wonder how many people died of induced mental or economic despair due to the lockdowns, which are still in place in some places, a year later, when we have ample evidence that their only effect is the destruction of livelihoods, especially of small business owners.
Inb4 downvotes from people who didn't RTFA
Yes, it's probably technically possible to transmit COVID from a 60 foot distance, but the probability is much less, and it's inaccurate to say that you're no safer at 60 feet than 6 feet.