TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The experiment that proved airborne disease transmission

171 点作者 pabo超过 4 年前

12 条评论

ajb超过 4 年前
Ok, dumb idea time: suppose that everyone in an office sits on a chair that raises their body to X volts. At the same time a collector mesh is provided at each desk, at -X volts, but shielded so that you can&#x27;t touch it and shock yourself.<p>What X is large enough to ensure that all the virus particles you cough out end up at the collector? Is it possible to do this without electrocuting everyone?
评论 #24676508 未加载
评论 #24676818 未加载
评论 #24676205 未加载
评论 #24676253 未加载
评论 #24676394 未加载
评论 #24675810 未加载
评论 #24676203 未加载
lifeisstillgood超过 4 年前
UV-C lights that irradiate an air duct is literally the most surprising (and in retrospect obvious) thing I learnt today.<p>Is this something a household HVAC could be upgraded to. Do HNers in areas that have air con think it&#x27;s a &quot;yeah people will want that&quot; idea?
评论 #24675825 未加载
评论 #24675628 未加载
评论 #24675696 未加载
评论 #24675698 未加载
评论 #24675674 未加载
评论 #24676134 未加载
评论 #24675594 未加载
评论 #24676191 未加载
评论 #24676689 未加载
lucb1e超过 4 年前
TL;DR: the actual experiment:<p>&gt; they constructed an air-tight closed ventilation system that connected a six-room tuberculosis ward to an exposure chamber with 150 guinea pigs. (Among rodent animal models, only guinea pigs could cough and sneeze, making them ideal for studying how respiratory diseases spread.) The guinea pigs were exposed to the infected air over a four-year period. A second group of 150 guinea pigs acted as controls: their air ducts were irradiated with UV-C lamps to kill TB bacilli.<p>Results:<p>&gt; an average of three guinea pigs per month contracted TB, while no controls were infected. The experiment [also] quantified how many TB infections could be expected to result from exposure to a given number of patients over a defined interval.<p>Relevance to COVID-19:<p>&gt; Riley’s research points to wearing masks and disinfecting air in enclosed spaces as two of the most effective tools for fighting COVID-19
评论 #24675324 未加载
评论 #24675413 未加载
评论 #24677653 未加载
评论 #24675652 未加载
praveen9920超过 4 年前
Can we &quot;mutate&quot; a virus to use radioactive isotope of carbon (c-14? something that is not harmful for humans) so that we can observe how viral a virus is?<p>Not an expert on radio isotopes or spectrography or viruses.<p>Note: I know, radioactive virus at this point might freakout people a little.
评论 #24676407 未加载
评论 #24677973 未加载
评论 #24677333 未加载
评论 #24676326 未加载
lootsauce超过 4 年前
Ok dumb question why don’t we settle the question by conducting the experiment for covid19?
评论 #24676401 未加载
评论 #24678188 未加载
评论 #24677651 未加载
trhway超过 4 年前
&gt; ultraviolet-C disinfection technology for air purification systems that were installed in health care facilities, factories, and NASA space capsules. Today, this technology is being used in Shanghai, Moscow, and New York City to protect subway and bus passengers against SARS-CoV-2, and China is also using the technology to disinfect hospitals<p>Russian FSB has just arrested (on secret state security charges) on his short trip back home from China a top high voltage systems specialist who has been working for the last two decades on UV water and air cleaning system in South Korea and China. Seems it is becoming a sought after hot tech in the current situation.
评论 #24675712 未加载
tech6超过 4 年前
I have an ozone vegetable washer. Is it dangerous to be in same room when this vegetable washer is running ? I can smell the odour of ozone near the vegetable washer
评论 #24679944 未加载
sharpercoder超过 4 年前
Can ultra-high resolution, ultra-high framerate and ultra-high zoom camera&#x27;s measure exhalation of virii particles out of a humans mouth?
评论 #24675414 未加载
评论 #24676780 未加载
评论 #24679620 未加载
dmix超过 4 年前
This quote from the report should be top of the list of the lesson-learned from this COVID pandemic:<p>&gt; The current guidance from numerous international and national bodies focuses on hand washing, maintaining social distancing, and droplet precautions. Most public health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) [16], do not recognize airborne transmission except for aerosol-generating procedures performed in healthcare settings. Hand washing and social distancing are appropriate but, in our view, insufficient to provide protection from virus-carrying respiratory microdroplets released into the air by infected people. This problem is especially acute in indoor or enclosed environments, particularly those that are crowded and have inadequate ventilation [17] relative to the number of occupants and extended exposure periods (as graphically depicted in Figure 1). For example, airborne transmission appears to be the only plausible explanation for several superspreading events investigated that occurred under such conditions [10], and others where recommended precautions related to direct droplet transmissions were followed.<p>Indoor contact, proper veneration, etc causing super-spreader events.<p>Meanwhile here in Canada they waited until <i>late May</i> to even recommend wearing a mask in such situations (other countries like the US had similar time frames and Dr Fauci openly admitted they withheld this recommendation for the benefit of healthcare workers).<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ctvnews.ca&#x2F;politics&#x2F;it-s-now-recommended-that-canadians-wear-face-masks-1.4946752" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ctvnews.ca&#x2F;politics&#x2F;it-s-now-recommended-that-ca...</a><p>Much like drug prohibition and other grand social control experiments, I&#x27;m not convinced the value of being vague or simply straight up not recommending masks in order to keep supply chain available for healthcare workers was ultimately worth the downside.<p>If supply chains was the issue then spend the government law enforcement power controlling and directing the supply chain for medical quality masks. This 4 month experiment (and I&#x27;m being generous there) where Feb, Mar, Apr and most of May they spent creating confusion and not recommending masks ultimately did more harm than good.<p>Now pundits and online commenters love to attack these anti-mask people when for much of the year expert sources were far from making masks the recommended choice. Including gov-delivered misinformation about their utility in order to explain themselves.<p>If the pro-social control (ie, lying the public) group thinks it was really stopping the wealthy and connected from completely ignoring these guidelines, then they are lying to themselves. As always with these gov poppet-mastery policies the only losers were the lowest common denominator poor people. Plenty of which <i>still</i> don&#x27;t funny trust masks.<p>I would have rather spent four+ months explaining the virtues of masks and explaining the supply problem honestly. Than playing catch up last minute.<p>The fact Asia who had adopted masks, and never spent any time lying or dodging their public on their utility, have done better than western countries is no surprise. Asian countries had masks well before COVID.<p>The older I get the more cynical I become about government and intelligentsia &#x27;we know whats best&#x27;, that includes withholding information (something extra popular in healthcare). All information should be as transparent as possible, regardless of fantasies of controlling it.
pbreit超过 4 年前
Was there any doubt?
评论 #24677351 未加载
calibas超过 4 年前
It seems the reasoning by officials is, &quot;Yes, it&#x27;s airborne, but there&#x27;s not enough N95 masks for everyone so we don&#x27;t want to cause panic or an N95 mask shortage for doctors and nurses by admitting it&#x27;s airborne.&quot;
评论 #24675808 未加载
评论 #24675315 未加载
评论 #24678193 未加载
pa7x1超过 4 年前
The idea of respiratory viruses not being airborne sounds silly. What&#x27;s the viral charge supposed to do, not jump into droplets smaller than certain size?<p>Of course they are present in the smallest droplets! They are present in the mucous secretions of the infected individual and they will get expelled through the big and the small droplets.<p>The distinction shouldn&#x27;t be a qualitative one, airborne vs not airborne. It&#x27;s a quantitative one, sufficiently infectious viruses may pose a risk at much smaller doses, the kind that you may be exposed by the smallest droplets expelled that simply stay afloat.<p>It&#x27;s also worth noting that human immune response is a complicated beast, what may not be infectious for an average healthy individual may put down someone with a weakened immune response. So even supposedly &quot;not airborne&quot; viruses that are very unlikely to infect the average healthy individual at very small doses may pose an &quot;airborne&quot; risk for individuals with a weakened immune response.<p>There are more factors in all of this, atmospheric conditions may play a role. For example, cold temperatures may be more suitable for the virus to remain infectious outside of a host, thus increasing the likelihood of &quot;airborne&quot; propagation.<p>TL;DR: The distinction between airborne and not airborne viruses is an artificial one. That only makes sense statistically for an average individual at certain atmospheric conditions for a concrete strain of the virus. But as any real-world statistical distribution there are tails and you will find &quot;airborne&quot; qualities for pretty much any respiratory virus in those tails.