16
votes
CDC study indicates that a small number of people in front of vents can infect entire buildings through the AC system
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with Air Conditioning in Restaurant, Guangzhou, China, 2020
- Word count
- 949 words
If more studies come out showing this is possible, part of the "reopening" policies may be that AC and over HVAC systems be completely disabled in all public buildings.
I'm not sure how reasonable that is in hot places, but I mean there may not be another choice.
Thoughts, in particular people who live in AC-heavy places?
It makes me wonder whether we need to re-evaluate whether it's sensible for society to live and build in places that get that hot, or really, anywhere that is prone to weather extremes—especially with the amplification of weather patterns due to climate change going forward.
Just like people shouldn't probably build at sea-level, 100ft away from the Atlantic on the eastern seaboard, it may be wise to evaluate building in more temperate climates that are less prone to desertification and heat waves going forward.
Managed retreats due to sea level rise are already a thing in low lying places, it won't be long in my view before places simply get too hot to live in comfortably for them to be considered habitable.
Actually my understanding is that most leading climatologists believe most of the weather extremes and sea level rise are already locked in up to a certain point, regardless of choices we make to act now. You can’t out-technology most of the effects of climate change without a huge social and economic restructuring to the way we as a species operate.
Those heat waves and storm surges are going to happen whatever we do, and we haven’t lost anything, in my view. On the contrary, we’ve hopefully gained a perspective that we’re not infallible.
There's not going to BE anywhere immune to disasters and other extremes. Bushfires, heat, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, rising sea levels, earthquakes, volcanoes - everywhere is fucked some way or some how.
This is always kind of a reductive take, IMO—mostly because it isn't true. There are absolutely places that are going to be significantly less affected by the results of climate change compared to others. Take a look at the Köppen climate classifications for some parts of the world.
Desert and semi-arid climates are at huge risk of water shortages, heat waves, and agricultural disasters, far more so than a temperate region or an oceanic region which is moderated by the dampening effect water has on climate.
Those who live in significantly less extreme zones shouldn't have to subisidize the repair and rebuilding of disasters which take place—repeatedly—in places that are sinking, like Louisiana, or drowning, like Miami, or are running out of water, like Socal in a few more decades. At some point it becomes economically infeasible to continually prop up and rebuild in areas like this.
Like @Loire said, we do have the technology to mitigate climate change to extent, but electric vehicles are a fraction of the vehicle market globally, we fly on planes like there's no tomorrow, coal plants are continuously being built, we continue to elect regressive climate change-denying politicians, and there is no meaningful path towards a zero-emission economy before 2040; and yet we want to continue to live in places that climate change is going to spit up and chew out. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
If we want to continue living in places that are going to get ravaged by climate change, we have to first act like climate change is a real and significant threat. No one is doing that.
And who is going to subsidise the movement and re-housing/re-employing of people who (for the crime of being born there) live in these areas?
See again, that's unfair, I never stated it was a "crime" to be born/live in any specific area, I would like it if you didn't twist my intent, if possible[1]. It's just life that people grow up and live where they do, through no fault of their own. It is however society as a whole's fault that we don't take more action to solve problems like this one.
And that's a great question. I have no idea. In a perfect world, I'd imagine the money would be spent regardless because it'd be cheaper to pay for those living in those areas to move than it would be to pay for the recurring cleanup and rebuilds every time a climate change-induced disaster hits the area. Failing that, I expect revenue generated from a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme would also pay for such costs—good luck seeing any western nation of a sizeable amount introduce such a thing in the next few decades, though.
[1]: I did consider prefacing my original comment with something like "I don't mean to sound mean," to suggesting that those who live in climate change-prone areas need to move, but I was hoping the charitable interpretation ethos of Tildes discussion would make doing so moot. Apparently I was wrong...
For public buildings, though. AC in your home won't matter since you're already infecting everyone anyway.
Maybe it'll help social distancing lol
In public buildings with lots of people, turning off the AC means hotboxing the people inside - if anyone inside has it, that's bad. Nothing gained, but now people are miserable too.
Source: Christian Drosten's podcast, I'mma look if you need me to and find you a quote.
E: same source, he also mentioned that -at least in china- the attack rate of the virus within a family is surprisingly low.
I grew up in Texas and not having an AC in certain places can be a death sentence.
I don't know but I think air conditioning systems vary a lot and I would guess it depends on the design?
During SARS there was a particular apartment complex that was hit hard due to the design of the water traps.