Masks

[yuneeq]

Again, from the article: "Recent experimental studies have examined the stability of SARS-CoV-2, showing that the virus remains infectious in aerosols for hours (12)"  Reference (12) was published in the April 16 issue of NEJM, though online March 17.

I don't care if they didn't read about it until June, this was already known in February.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-21/how-the-novel-coronavirus-can-maybe-infect-you-quicktake
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-covid-19-is-spread-67143
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180116.shtml

The arrogance of American researchers is astonishing, judging by the amount of "new discoveries" for things we already knew about for months (or years, in the case of masks). Puts into perspective how useless most of their COVID research is when they are always 2-3 months behind.

[biobook]

I don't care if they didn't read about it until June, this was already known in February.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-21/how-the-novel-coronavirus-can-maybe-infect-you-quicktake
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/how-covid-19-is-spread-67143
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180116.shtml

The arrogance of American researchers is astonishing, judging by the amount of "new discoveries" for things we already knew about for months (or years, in the case of masks). Puts into perspective how useless most of their COVID research is when they are always 2-3 months behind.

I gotta hand it to you, @yuneeq! How do you keep up with this?  I can barely keep track of the papers I read last week, let alone remember what happened in February.

I suspect that you and I agree that (a) masks may be helpful, (b) this paper doesn't add much, and (c) it isn't worth discussing further. 

I'll just take a moment to point out why the researchers said that aerosol transmission was shown in April, while you "knew" it in February.  It's because scientists prefer to cite a published paper, rather than the sources you listed. 

Feb 19. Global Times.
China’s health agency says that aerosol transmission occurs, based on a statement by a health official at a press conference.  No data or explanation was given, nothing in writing.

Feb 21.  The Scientist
The article says that aerosolized transmission “was discussed by a Shanghai official in early February”, so this might be referring to the above report, but then quotes an Australian virologist who says that there's no evidence that aerosols spread covid.

Feb 20. Bloomberg
This quotes a WHO report saying aerosol transmission “can be envisaged” as occurring during certain medical procedures, and should be studied further.  No data to show it occurs.

March 17. NEJM online
April 16. NEJM
This is the reference [12] cited in the article I reviewed, that showed coronavirus in aerosol, and seems to be the first published research.

after March/April Bloomberg, update to Feb 20 article
This page currently says “Researchers who aerosolized it intentionally found active virus can float in the air for as long as 3 hours.”, and links to the NEJM April article, so this sentence could not have been in the Feb 20 version.

Of course, many people had read the earlier news articles, and it was being discussed and even acted upon in February.  But scientists have long used the date of publication as "discovery" date, so attributing the discovery of aerosolized transmission to March/April seems appropriate.

[yuneeq]

I gotta hand it to you, @yuneeq! How do you keep up with this?  I can barely keep track of the papers I read last week, let alone remember what happened in February.

I suspect that you and I agree that (a) masks may be helpful, (b) this paper doesn't add much, and (c) it isn't worth discussing further. 

I'll just take a moment to point out why the researchers said that aerosol transmission was shown in April, while you "knew" it in February.  It's because scientists prefer to cite a published paper, rather than the sources you listed. 

Feb 19. Global Times.
China’s health agency says that aerosol transmission occurs, based on a statement by a health official at a press conference.  No data or explanation was given, nothing in writing.

Feb 21.  The Scientist
The article says that aerosolized transmission “was discussed by a Shanghai official in early February”, so this might be referring to the above report, but then quotes an Australian virologist who says that there's no evidence that aerosols spread covid.

Feb 20. Bloomberg
This quotes a WHO report saying aerosol transmission “can be envisaged” as occurring during certain medical procedures, and should be studied further.  No data to show it occurs.

March 17. NEJM online
April 16. NEJM
This is the reference [12] cited in the article I reviewed, that showed coronavirus in aerosol, and seems to be the first published research.

after March/April Bloomberg, update to Feb 20 article
This page currently says “Researchers who aerosolized it intentionally found active virus can float in the air for as long as 3 hours.”, and links to the NEJM April article, so this sentence could not have been in the Feb 20 version.

Of course, many people had read the earlier news articles, and it was being discussed and even acted upon in February.  But scientists have long used the date of publication as "discovery" date, so attributing the discovery of aerosolized transmission to March/April seems appropriate.

I don’t know if I can I find an actual study before that March study, but you’re missing the point.

“Back in March, experts thought that the virus is communicated by droplets that we expel when we cough or sneeze.”

If they were confident that COVID only spread via droplets until then, then they are literally complete idiots. The info coming from China and elsewhere strongly suggested that aerosolized transmission was probable if not factual. Remember this info was coming from China, which famously denied that COVID spreads human to human a month earlier. There’s reason to believe anything negative about COVID that is coming from the Chinese, at the very least to entertain the option. Not to even entertain the option until you have a peer reviewed study published is either complete arrogance or lack of intelligence.

[PlatinumGuy]

I don’t know if I can I find an actual study before that March study, but you’re missing the point.

“Back in March, experts thought that the virus is communicated by droplets that we expel when we cough or sneeze.”

If they were confident that COVID only spread via droplets until then, then they are literally complete idiots. The info coming from China and elsewhere strongly suggested that aerosolized transmission was probable if not factual. Remember this info was coming from China, which famously denied that COVID spreads human to human a month earlier. There’s reason to believe anything negative about COVID that is coming from the Chinese, at the very least to entertain the option. Not to even entertain the option until you have a peer reviewed study published is either complete arrogance or lack of intelligence.

I don't think that's factually correct. They said it's not proven one way or the other.

[biobook]

I don’t know if I can I find an actual study before that March study, but you’re missing the point.

“Back in March, experts thought that the virus is communicated by droplets that we expel when we cough or sneeze.”

If they were confident that COVID only spread via droplets until then, then they are literally complete idiots. The info coming from China and elsewhere strongly suggested that aerosolized transmission was probable if not factual. Remember this info was coming from China, which famously denied that COVID spreads human to human a month earlier. There’s reason to believe anything negative about COVID that is coming from the Chinese, at the very least to entertain the option. Not to even entertain the option until you have a peer reviewed study published is either complete arrogance or lack of intelligence.

Multiple things going on here - What actually happened, What the authors said happened, What I wrote about it... and here I'll take credit for the idiocy, because I see that my amateur writing was misleading. 

I think I get your point now. Is this better?

Initially, experts thought that the virus would be like measles, communicated by droplets that we expel when we cough or sneeze.  But mid-February, info from China suggested that aerosolized transmission could also occur.  Shocked and horrified, scientists raced to investigate this, and soon confirmed that active virus could be found in aerosols, both in artificial aerosols created in the lab, and in air samples from hospital rooms where covid patients had stayed.  This eventually led to a greater emphasis on the importance of mask-wearing. (For details of their study, see their NEJM article, publication date April, though published online on March 17, and certainly discussed among health professionals even earlier.)

[yuneeq]

Multiple things going on here - What actually happened, What the authors said happened, What I wrote about it... and here I'll take credit for the idiocy, because I see that my amateur writing was misleading. 

I think I get your point now. Is this better?

Initially, experts thought that the virus would be like measles, communicated by droplets that we expel when we cough or sneeze.  But mid-February, info from China suggested that aerosolized transmission could also occur.  Shocked and horrified, scientists raced to investigate this, and soon confirmed that active virus could be found in aerosols, both in artificial aerosols created in the lab, and in air samples from hospital rooms where covid patients had stayed.  This eventually led to a greater emphasis on the importance of mask-wearing. (For details of their study, see their NEJM article, publication date April, though published online on March 17, and certainly discussed among health professionals even earlier.)

Not looking to argue, but regarding one point of yours - measles is actually airborne. Re: COVID - I originally understood that it is aerosolized but not necessarily airborne, but now I'm seeing some research that equates aerosolized spread with airborne spread. I understood the difference that an aerosol is a small droplet that can linger around for a few seconds, light enough to float with an air draft and spread to another side of the room. And airborne would be a microscopic droplet that can basically last for a couple hours in mid air.

If you're bored, read this article and come out more confused than when you started: https://first10em.com/aerosols-droplets-and-airborne-spread/

[ExGingi]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-ooze/202006/why-face-masks-give-us-the-creeps

[Euclid]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-ooze/202006/why-face-masks-give-us-the-creeps

A good reason to be using a face shield instead. Facial expressions, lip reading, and beards are all non issues.

[ExGingi]

A good reason to be using a face shield instead. Facial expressions, lip reading, and beards are all non issues.

I've said that from the outset.

[Euclid]

I've said that from the outset.

Do you think they'd be more accepted in places where people are being heckled for wearing them?

[ExGingi]

Do you think they'd be more accepted in places where people are being heckled for wearing them?

I have no clue. I can see no justification for heckling people who wear masks.

ETA: My gut feeling is that the most common emotion towards those wearing a mask is pitty on them that they haven't had COVID-19 and recovered. Definitely no reason to heckle. Though at this point I feel terrible for not testing positive for COVID-19, as that would have allowed me to visit EY without quarantine. My positive IgG antibody test doesn't help.

[yuneeq]

A good reason to be using a face shield instead. Facial expressions, lip reading, and beards are all non issues.

I've said that from the outset.

Face shields are most useful in addition to wearing a mask, not instead of. There isn't great protection from aerosolized droplets with just a face shield, face shields are used to give fluid protection.

[S209]

Face shields are most useful in addition to wearing a mask, not instead of. There isn't great protection from aerosolized droplets with just a face shield, face shields are used to give fluid protection.

Beat me to it

[Euclid]

Face shields are most useful in addition to wearing a mask, not instead of. There isn't great protection from aerosolized droplets with just a face shield, face shields are used to give fluid protection.

Is the risk from real aeroslized droplets that can float under a face shield high, according to current understanding?

[ExGingi]

Face shields are most useful in addition to wearing a mask, not instead of. There isn't great protection from aerosolized droplets with just a face shield, face shields are used to give fluid protection.

So are you saying that if an infected person wearing a face shield sings, sneezes or coughs, the aerosol droplets fly towards the shield, take a turn downward when they realize the shield is there, escape, and then float back upward once they clear the shield? That's truly amazing!

[Lurker]

So are you saying that if an infected person wearing a face shield sings, sneezes or coughs, the aerosol droplets fly towards the shield, take a turn downward when they realize the shield is there, escape, and then float back upward once they clear the shield? That's truly amazing!

Try it. Put some food coloring and water into a spray bottle, lay out a white sheet in a room with the same expected air movement, spray it at a shield, and see where the droplets end up.

[ExGingi]

Try it. Put some food coloring and water into a spray bottle, lay out a white sheet in a room with the same expected air movement, spray it at a shield, and see where the droplets end up.

Sounds like a case of טענו בחטים, והודה לו בשעורים. Your experiment seems to be for protecting the wearer. I'm talking about protecting FROM the wearer.

[Lurker]

Sounds like a case of טענו בחטים, והודה לו בשעורים. Your experiment seems to be for protecting the wearer. I'm talking about protecting FROM the wearer.

I'm talking about from the wearer. Simulate what singing into a face shield would do to the rest of the room.

[Euclid]

We're falling into the same trap again. Face shields are still infinitely better than nothing.

[S209]

So are you saying that if an infected person wearing a face shield sings, sneezes or coughs, the aerosol droplets fly towards the shield, take a turn downward when they realize the shield is there, escape, and then float back upward once they clear the shield? That's truly amazing!

This would be an example of the science possibly working differently than “your eyes” would assume it to