It seems well-written but here is a skeptical take. I think the way to resolve it might be to consider the article to be illustrating what happens in super-spreader events, rather than the average...
This is anecdotal, but prior to the start of school I attended a virtual training by an epidemiologist regarding safe reopenings for schools, and the stuff in this article was entirely consistent...
This is anecdotal, but prior to the start of school I attended a virtual training by an epidemiologist regarding safe reopenings for schools, and the stuff in this article was entirely consistent with what was shared by the epidemiologist. She kept stressing that schools were spending way too much time and money on mitigating touch-based transmission and were completely neglecting the much greater threat posed by aerosols. She also said that, unconditionally, choir and band classes should not happen at all on account of how anything that requires heavy breathing so greatly increases the risk of spread (she was lukewarm on PE classes and said they should really only be happening outside).
Also, our district is now using a definition of "close contact" which also includes a cumulative time in shared space, rather than just a distance threshhold (previously it was "under six feet away for more than 15 minutes", which pretty much doesn't ever happen). We've been notified that, because of our cumulative time with our cohorts, we will be deemed close contacts of positive cases for the purposes of quarantining, even if we never came near the infected student.
cc: @skybrian I hate that I have to walk this back, but it turns out the cumulative time for "close contact" is not what my district is using, despite us being told that they would be. In efforts...
I hate that I have to walk this back, but it turns out the cumulative time for "close contact" is not what my district is using, despite us being told that they would be. In efforts to stay open amidst rising case numbers they are now doing the same thing I've seen reported by many teachers online from other areas: no one is considered a close contact because everyone is seated 6 feet away from one another. Thus, a positive test triggers no additional quarantines, and only the student who tested positive stays home.
Neither that thread nor the article make a good case for the actual numbers. (It is a great article with great visualisations though) I'm also unconvinced by the classroom numbers. They sound very...
Neither that thread nor the article make a good case for the actual numbers. (It is a great article with great visualisations though)
I'm also unconvinced by the classroom numbers. They sound very underestimated. This is not how classrooms work a lot of the time, and just because a class can be 1hr doesn't mean there won't be another class right after. The whole ventilation thing? Does that actually happen?
My takeaway though is that the whole 1.5m distance thing is ridiculous. We should focus on mask wearing, ventilation / air conditioning, and limiting room capacity. I see VERY little focus on ventilation actually, and limiting capacity tends to be done in the dumbest ways possible (such as creating a large queue of people in usually high throughput areas, causing increased spreading in waiting areas instead).
The more we know about the ways the virus spread, the less patience I have dealing with failures to address the real vectors, and religious focus on things that matter a lot less (such as enforced social distancing when mask is already mandatory).
It seems like crowds are still bad though? The “social distancing” guideline should reduce the number of people infected in one event, if nothing else.
It seems like crowds are still bad though? The “social distancing” guideline should reduce the number of people infected in one event, if nothing else.
I don't think this is meant to be a perfect model, just a model to explain how it spreads and how different mitigation factors affect spread. This is meant to be illustrative on how to estimate...
I think the way to resolve it might be to consider the article to be illustrating what happens in super-spreader events, rather than the average case.
I don't think this is meant to be a perfect model, just a model to explain how it spreads and how different mitigation factors affect spread. This is meant to be illustrative on how to estimate risk factors and what should be done to reduce risk.
To imply that the percentages will hold true for all humans is ignorant of human diversity. There are very likely people on this planet who are completely immune to this virus despite perhaps never having extended contact (or contact at all) with someone who is COVID+. In addition how much any one individual spreads the virus will obviously vary depending on how their immune system responds and how much active virus is circulating in their system.
It seems well-written but here is a skeptical take.
I think the way to resolve it might be to consider the article to be illustrating what happens in super-spreader events, rather than the average case.
This is anecdotal, but prior to the start of school I attended a virtual training by an epidemiologist regarding safe reopenings for schools, and the stuff in this article was entirely consistent with what was shared by the epidemiologist. She kept stressing that schools were spending way too much time and money on mitigating touch-based transmission and were completely neglecting the much greater threat posed by aerosols. She also said that, unconditionally, choir and band classes should not happen at all on account of how anything that requires heavy breathing so greatly increases the risk of spread (she was lukewarm on PE classes and said they should really only be happening outside).
Also, our district is now using a definition of "close contact" which also includes a cumulative time in shared space, rather than just a distance threshhold (previously it was "under six feet away for more than 15 minutes", which pretty much doesn't ever happen). We've been notified that, because of our cumulative time with our cohorts, we will be deemed close contacts of positive cases for the purposes of quarantining, even if we never came near the infected student.
cc: @skybrian
I hate that I have to walk this back, but it turns out the cumulative time for "close contact" is not what my district is using, despite us being told that they would be. In efforts to stay open amidst rising case numbers they are now doing the same thing I've seen reported by many teachers online from other areas: no one is considered a close contact because everyone is seated 6 feet away from one another. Thus, a positive test triggers no additional quarantines, and only the student who tested positive stays home.
Neither that thread nor the article make a good case for the actual numbers. (It is a great article with great visualisations though)
I'm also unconvinced by the classroom numbers. They sound very underestimated. This is not how classrooms work a lot of the time, and just because a class can be 1hr doesn't mean there won't be another class right after. The whole ventilation thing? Does that actually happen?
My takeaway though is that the whole 1.5m distance thing is ridiculous. We should focus on mask wearing, ventilation / air conditioning, and limiting room capacity. I see VERY little focus on ventilation actually, and limiting capacity tends to be done in the dumbest ways possible (such as creating a large queue of people in usually high throughput areas, causing increased spreading in waiting areas instead).
The more we know about the ways the virus spread, the less patience I have dealing with failures to address the real vectors, and religious focus on things that matter a lot less (such as enforced social distancing when mask is already mandatory).
It seems like crowds are still bad though? The “social distancing” guideline should reduce the number of people infected in one event, if nothing else.
Yeah the positive results from social distancing guidelines are imo to do with reduced crowd density, not the actual distancing.
I don't think this is meant to be a perfect model, just a model to explain how it spreads and how different mitigation factors affect spread. This is meant to be illustrative on how to estimate risk factors and what should be done to reduce risk.
To imply that the percentages will hold true for all humans is ignorant of human diversity. There are very likely people on this planet who are completely immune to this virus despite perhaps never having extended contact (or contact at all) with someone who is COVID+. In addition how much any one individual spreads the virus will obviously vary depending on how their immune system responds and how much active virus is circulating in their system.