Re:Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
by obelos on Monday August 03, 2020 @11:25AM
(#24038875)
They're in the extremely well ventilated outdoors, and at least at the protests I was at there were very few people not wearing masks. Also, people in these gatherings tend to mill about, which means any contact with a stream of virus-infused exhalations will be brief and less likely to introduce a viable quantity into you.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
by James_Henry on Monday August 03, 2020 @11:38AM
(#24039077)
This is what the Forbes article reports the Washington Post saying that Minnesota health officials believe, and it seems to make sense.
Re:Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
by jakear on Monday August 03, 2020 @11:51AM
(#24039277)
I haven’t seen any research on this, but is there a chance being introduced to very small viral loads could actually improve your expected future health? We know that larger loads are harder to fight and produce worse symptoms, but what of “mico-loads”? It would seem they should almost act as a semi-vaccine: you get an easy to fight and low symptom load once, then you’ve created antibodies for the future. So long as you continue to be exposed to micro-loads in day to day life, those antibodies shouldn’t go away, and you’ll be safe from any potential “mega-load”.
Re:Why aren’t we talking more about airborne transmission?
by obelos on Monday August 03, 2020 @12:01PM
(#24039426)
I don't know if there's data specific to SARS-CoV-2, but this is the mechanism behind inoculation (as opposed to vaccination). This method was used to reduce smallpox deaths before vaccination had been developed.