MIT study says 6 feet or 60 feet, exposure risk is the same even with a mask.

[school12]

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/23/mit-researchers-say-youre-no-safer-from-covid-indoors-at-6-feet-or-60-feet-in-new-study.html

 

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 MIT researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

 

“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.”

[internationalism]

but if the person next to you starts sneezing, coughing, spitting or trying to touch or kiss, you don't have much chance to move away. You have more time, if 6 or 60 feet

[Puccini]

From the research report to which the CNBC article gives a link:

 

"...By assuming that the respiratory droplets are mixed uniformly through an indoor space..."

 

Assuming something like that does not sound very scientific, does it?

[impulse]

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.

 

A little tidbit from the article that most people will gloss over...

 

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, impulse said:

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.

 

A little tidbit from the article that most people will gloss over...

 

Seems some will try to ignore the science when it doesn't suit their narrative.

[Brierley]

 “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.”

 

That makes sense to me at least.

[simon43]

Thank heavens we're safe in Asia, since we don't use imperial units of measurement.... ????

[KKr]

19 hours ago, school12 said:

“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit

that is not Research.

arguments need to be proven by Research.

compare the argument : “the earth is flat because that is my perception.”

MIT would NOT endorse such publication.

[impulse]

23 minutes ago, KKr said:

that is not Research.

arguments need to be proven by Research.

compare the argument : “the earth is flat because that is my perception.”

MIT would NOT endorse such publication.

 

And yet, here it is...

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/17/e2018995118.full.pdf

 

Though I think the media has dumbed it down in this article for layman's consumption to a point that they lost the meaning.  Or maybe that's deliberate.

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by impulse

[Nonthaburi Boy]

Reading the study (which is very interesting and has something for everyone - I find the CNBC summary of its findings misleading) what this actually seems to mean is that, without very good ventilation, working in a fairly busy office or spending a lot of time in a bar or restaurant is even more dangerous than the ‘rules’ would suggest. It appears to be particularly dangerous when people do not wear masks while seated.  One thing this does not say is that mask-wearing is unhelpful - in fact the complete opposite. It also says (guessing) 3 feet - not no feet - outdoors. They are saying it is like secondhand smoke, which is not new. 

 

Good news for schools, provided windows are open, class-size split and masks worn throughout the day indoors.

 

It certainly does support the reopening of some businesses, but only if people density is pretty low, or they are outside or in truly well-ventilated spaces (so you are probably good - masked - in Paragon but not so good at some Villa or Foodland branches, if they are busy). 

 

At first glance, it’s not great news for long-distance commuters, but trains may be particularly well-ventilated. Certainly good news for wet markets, if properly managed. Good news for those of us living in hot climates where we spend more time outside and tend to have our windows and doors open.

 

It is important to realise that it is a model (basement-dwelling research) so it really needs to be tested thoroughly against actual incidents (preferably against tests in an actual space too). Does it explain what happened adequately?  They do a bit of this, but you’d want to do a lot more I think.

[Sametboy2019]

So if you get Covid and maybe don't have serious symptoms it probably wouldn't be a good ideas to stick you in a room with a 100 other sick people with beds a couple of meters away?

[internationalism]

the field hospitals worked through the second wave, there are no issues in the 3rd wave.

They contain infection.

It's free.

If anybody wants to pay for a private room 1-2k/day in a government hospital or many times more (somebody said in pattaya 30k/night) they can, many of them on insurance, so doesn't matter much.

[Sheryl]

Some important notes:

 

1. This was not a study of actual transmisison events but rather it is based on a model constructed from assumptions. Needs to be compared to real world occurrences.

 

2. Refers to prolonged presence indoors in a confined space that is not well ventilated. The idea being that in that situation the degree of virus in the background air is what matters and this will not vary much, if at all, by distancing.  (However one would think that the odds of the background air containing the virus increases with the number of people in the space, so occupancy limits may still have some value)

 

It should also be noted that while they do not think 6 foot distance within a room offers much if any protection they do identify many other  factors that would i.e:

- ventilation

- amount of time spent in the indoor place

- mask usage

- activities (your own or others) such as speaking, singing, etc

 

It is a useful dialogue and paired with some real-world observations could help to develop a more evidence based set of guidelines for curtailing spread, not just of COVID but of any future airborne illnesses.

 

I have long  doubted the value of closing down things like beauty salons, swimming pools/beaches, small shops etc.  Whereas the dangers of venues like night clubs, karaoke, all sorts of indoor bars, church services that include singing etc are well documented.  Since there will surely be more pandemics, sooner or later,  it would be good to develop an evidence based set of tiers of measures to be taken.

 

The actual article is here

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118

[Sheryl]

3 hours ago, internationalism said:

the field hospitals worked through the second wave, there are no issues in the 3rd wave.

They contain infection.

It's free.

If anybody wants to pay for a private room 1-2k/day in a government hospital or many times more (somebody said in pattaya 30k/night) they can, many of them on insurance, so doesn't matter much.

 

For a COVID patient special hospital room with controlled air flow is required and it is not 1-2k anywhere. Much more.

 

More to the point those who can and want to pay can't because it is nto up to them and the bed space isn't available.

 

 I am pretty sure Field Hospital is not free for foreigner.

[Jeffr2]

This is just one study, and is saying directly the opposite of a PEER reviewed research study announced by the CDC.  Covid deniers will latch on to this one study.  But in reality, many others have said exactly the opposite.  6 feet of separation can help stop the spread of this airborne virus.

 

From that article:

 

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines that recommend 6 feet of distance between people from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. They say staying 6 feet away from another person may not be enough when people are inside for prolonged periods of time.

[Excel]

3 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

This is just one study, and is saying directly the opposite of a PEER reviewed research study announced by the CDC.  Covid deniers will latch on to this one study.  But in reality, many others have said exactly the opposite.  6 feet of separation can help stop the spread of this airborne virus.

 

From that article:

 

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines that recommend 6 feet of distance between people from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America. They say staying 6 feet away from another person may not be enough when people are inside for prolonged periods of time.

But does you example of the differing views/guidelines only go to illustrate  the level of uncertainty as to how this virus actually spreads and is still widely not fully understood by the scientific community ? 

[Jeffr2]

14 minutes ago, Excel said:

But does you example of the differing views/guidelines only go to illustrate  the level of uncertainty as to how this virus actually spreads and is still widely not fully understood by the scientific community ? 

The vast majority of research I've read indicates some form of social distancing helps.  Maybe 3 feet, maybe 6.  Depends on the situation.  Indoors, outdoors, choir practice, crowded areas, etc. 

 

But only dodgy studies say social distancing doesn't work.  IMHO!!

[Excel]

18 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

The vast majority of research I've read indicates some form of social distancing helps.  Maybe 3 feet, maybe 6.  Depends on the situation.  Indoors, outdoors, choir practice, crowded areas, etc. 

 

But only dodgy studies say social distancing doesn't work.  IMHO!!

But logic that is the only conclusion one can draw and taking it to the extreme being no where near anybody it can not be passed on, unless of course it is airborne in nano particles which currently appears to have been discarded by the scientific community currently. Perhaps in 50 years the world will understand better the cause of this and exactly why it spread so quickly and how better to control future pandemics.

[Jeffr2]

18 minutes ago, Excel said:

But logic that is the only conclusion one can draw and taking it to the extreme being no where near anybody it can not be passed on, unless of course it is airborne in nano particles which currently appears to have been discarded by the scientific community currently. Perhaps in 50 years the world will understand better the cause of this and exactly why it spread so quickly and how better to control future pandemics.

I think science understands this pretty well.  The problem is getting the population educated.  Seems the vast majority of waves were due to people ignoring the safety guidelines.  Social distancing, wearing a mask, etc.

[Excel]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I think science understands this pretty well.  The problem is getting the population educated.  Seems the vast majority of waves were due to people ignoring the safety guidelines.  Social distancing, wearing a mask, etc.

No that is not quite true. The transportation of airborne virus nan-particles has not been fully investigated to conclude definitively as proven/unproven yet.  Nor has it been determined as to whether a covid virus nano-particle was or could be naturally formed or even could have been an engineered nano-particle.   Of course we need to all wear masks because currently that is recognised best practice but if the virus was eventually proved to be a naturally or even an engineered nano-particle then best practice would be subject to revision. As I said in 50 years we may have a better understanding. 

[Jeffr2]

8 minutes ago, Excel said:

No that is not quite true. The transportation of airborne virus nan-particles has not been fully investigated to conclude definitively as proven/unproven yet.  Nor has it been determined as to whether a covid virus nano-particle was or could be naturally formed or even could have been an engineered nano-particle.   Of course we need to all wear masks because currently that is recognised best practice but if the virus was eventually proved to be a naturally or even an engineered nano-particle then best practice would be subject to revision. As I said in 50 years we may have a better understanding. 

The vast majority of scientists say this virus is from nature.  And airborne.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html

The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to respiratory droplets carrying infectious virus.

Respiratory droplets are produced during exhalation (e.g., breathing, speaking, singing, coughing, sneezing) and span a wide spectrum of sizes that may be divided into two basic categories based on how long they can remain suspended in the air:

• Larger droplets some of which are visible and that fall out of the air rapidly within seconds to minutes while close to the source.
• Smaller droplets and particles (formed when small droplets dry very quickly in the airstream) that can remain suspended for many minutes to hours and travel far from the source on air currents.

Once respiratory droplets are exhaled and as they move outward from the source, their concentration decreases through fallout from the air (largest droplets first, smaller later) combined with dilution of the remaining smaller droplets and particles into the growing volume of air they encounter.

 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/949555

 

10 Reasons Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Appears Airtight

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Jeffr2

[Excel]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

The vast majority of scientists say this virus is from nature.  And airborne.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/scientific-brief-sars-cov-2.html

The principal mode by which people are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) is through exposure to dropletslets carrying infectious virus.

Respiratory droplets are produced during exhalation (e.g., breathing, speaking, singing, coughing, sneezing) and span a wide spectrum of sizes that may be divided into two basic categories based on how long they can remain suspended in the air:

• Larger droplets some of which are visible and that fall out of the air rapidly within seconds to minutes while close to the source.
• Smaller droplets and particles (formed when small droplets dry very quickly in the airstream) that can remain suspended for many minutes to hours and travel far from the source on air currents.

Once respiratory droplets are exhaled and as they move outward from the source, their concentration decreases through fallout from the air (largest droplets first, smaller later) combined with dilution of the remaining smaller droplets and particles into the growing volume of air they encounter.

 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/949555

 

10 Reasons Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Appears Airtight

 

 

That is referring to respiratory droplets though and its associated spread.

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, Excel said:

That is referring to respiratory droplets though and its associated spread.

Right.  Which contain the virus and cause infections in others.  I'm confused.

[Excel]

12 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Right.  Which contain the virus and cause infections in others.  I'm confused.

Simplified, the research you quoted was the current accepted science of the way the covid virus is spreading.  What has not been established though is are there other ways it spreads currently undetected./discovered  the point I was emphasising regarding nanoparticle circulation. It all started someone and the conspiracy theorists are well know for blaming someone and it appears to have made the jump from bats to humans, somehow but there is yet no proof publicly how that jump occurred or in what way. If the virus was transferred by a naturally recurring airborne phenomena, the current thinking and scientific evidence suggest primarily it is via respiratory droplets  or whether indeed there was an engineered nano particle is still subject to conjecture.  Research will be ongoing as always yet as I said in 50 years we hopefully will have a better and truer picture of how this pandemic occurred.

Actually these articles are quite interesting although you may have read them already,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984745/

https://sustainable-nano.com/2014/05/13/nano-contaminants-how-nanoparticles-get-into-the-environment/

 

[Jeffr2]

26 minutes ago, Excel said:

Simplified, the research you quoted was the current accepted science of the way the covid virus is spreading.  What has not been established though is are there other ways it spreads currently undetected./discovered  the point I was emphasising regarding nanoparticle circulation. It all started someone and the conspiracy theorists are well know for blaming someone and it appears to have made the jump from bats to humans, somehow but there is yet no proof publicly how that jump occurred or in what way. If the virus was transferred by a naturally recurring airborne phenomena, the current thinking and scientific evidence suggest primarily it is via respiratory droplets  or whether indeed there was an engineered nano particle is still subject to conjecture.  Research will be ongoing as always yet as I said in 50 years we hopefully will have a better and truer picture of how this pandemic occurred.

Actually these articles are quite interesting although you may have read them already,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984745/

https://sustainable-nano.com/2014/05/13/nano-contaminants-how-nanoparticles-get-into-the-environment/

 

Interesting.  But I've yet to see any credible scientific report that says the virus was engineered.  Zip.  Just conspiracy theories.  And conjectures by some.

 

But yes, the Chinese need to open up so we can find the source.  Sad they are not doing this.  And sad they are trying to blame the virus on other countries.  Terrible.

[Excel]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

Interesting.  But I've yet to see any credible scientific report that says the virus was engineered.  Zip.  Just conspiracy theories.  And conjectures by some.

 

But yes, the Chinese need to open up so we can find the source.  Sad they are not doing this.  And sad they are trying to blame the virus on other countries.  Terrible.

Actually it is sad that any country or persons within those countries attempt to put the blame on another. engineering nano particles is not a conspiracy theory as it has already become a process in many other fields. A conspiracy theory would be if it is suggested that covid virus in the form of nano particles was deliberately engineered. I am certainly not saying that I was just pointing out , perhaps not too articulately, that there are so many unknowns still that perhaps in 50 years we will understand better hopefully, by which time who knows what other mutations will impact us.

Food for thought - who say 50 years ago would have stood up and said that in 50 years time, most of the worlds population would need to be wearing masks to protect themselves from a virus ? Possibly anybody who had done that would have been ridiculed.

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, Excel said:

Actually it is sad that any country or persons within those countries attempt to put the blame on another. engineering nano particles is not a conspiracy theory as it has already become a process in many other fields. A conspiracy theory would be if it is suggested that covid virus in the form of nano particles was deliberately engineered. I am certainly not saying that I was just pointing out , perhaps not too articulately, that there are so many unknowns still that perhaps in 50 years we will understand better hopefully, by which time who knows what other mutations will impact us.

Food for thought - who say 50 years ago would have stood up and said that in 50 years time, most of the worlds population would need to be wearing masks to protect themselves from a virus ? Possibly anybody who had done that would have been ridiculed.

We're living in crazy times.  Hard to wrap my head around what's going on.

 

Thanks for your comments!  In the end, we're all in this together.  And there are too many bloody people on the planet!????

[Excel]

7 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

We're living in crazy times.  Hard to wrap my head around what's going on.

 

Thanks for your comments!  In the end, we're all in this together.  And there are too many bloody people on the planet!????

That is the problem, too many of us and the human race is so good at perfecting cures to keep ourselves alive and living longer

[KKr]

On 4/26/2021 at 8:17 AM, impulse said:

 

And yet, here it is...

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/17/e2018995118.full.pdf

 

Though I think the media has dumbed it down in this article for layman's consumption to a point that they lost the meaning.  Or maybe that's deliberate.

 

indeed the editor fails to mention that the argument is based on scientific research .... 

oh well, interesting assumption. faculties of Chemical Engineering and Mathematics no less. 

 

Recently was in need of some solid statistics regarding Earthquakes, came across a good looking PhD thesis with predictive conclusions concerning earthquake damage. 

I then asked a few questions to the Author. the answer was that he did the study to proof that it is possible to handle that much data. Nothing like for studying Earthquakes. 

so, as I found out, unfortunately, not all conclusions put forward in studies can a priori be relied on.

 

[Jeffr2]

https://www.facebook.com/nbtworld/photos/a.10151714100817050/10157976742947050/