Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by clairity 2259 days ago
99% of the reduction in transmission comes from physical distancing alone while inside of closed spaces with strangers. hygiene is likely negligible outside of a very few high interaction zones inside those enclosed spaces. testing only improves targeting who to distance (isolate).

it's a virus that rides on tiny masses of water to hopefully jump into the nasopharyngeal cavity of the next host. if it doesn't make it to those warm and juicy brachiae, it exponentially decays to the elements in hours. relative to air, those virus-laden water masses are heavy. most fall at your feet. some fly a few feet. very few make it many feet.

then imagine your chances of making a full-court basket (94 feet, 9.4" diameter ball in 18" hoop) and then divide those odds by the several orders of magnitude smaller that viruses are relative to us.

wearing masks (or gloves) outside makes no sense. you might as well walk around with your own lightning rod too then.

2 comments

Substantial research contradicts your claims. See https://www.masks4all.co for links.
that site serves to reduce anxiety rather than transmission risk. none of the graphs and pull quotes, presumably the strongest arguments they could find, address the added risk reduction of masks above other prevention measures like distancing, and especially not concerning outdoor, non-group settings for the general public.

emergency personnel, medical professionals, and essential business workers should wear masks because they are at elevated, face-to-face risk.

> 99% of the reduction in transmission comes from physical distancing alone while inside of closed spaces with strangers.

This is an extremely strong statement. Although it might be plausibly true, my impression is that the transmission of the disease isn't well enough understood to make such assertions with confidence.

Can you cite a reference for your claim?

I think it is agreed that physical distancing alone while inside of closed spaces with strangers is an extremely good idea. Wearing masks is, potentially, also an extremely good idea.

Shouldn't we adopt any and all measures that have the potential (not certainty; potential is enough) to substantially cut down on Covid-19 transmission, and whose economic and other costs are comparatively modest? Even if we later determine that only one of these measures was really necessary, I doubt that we'll regret our efforts.