That agrees that the virus is mostly transmitted via droplets rather aerosolized virus particles. A bare virus can float in the air for quite a while but all the evidence we have, especially stuff like form that site, seems to show that that isn't a route by which people are being infected. Instead its being transmitted over shorter distances, generally around 6 feet but longer if someone is shouting, singing, coughing without covering, or just directly downwind.
Even droplet based spread (which is not airborne) can transfer over distances on to surfaces. This is why there is advisory for a 6+ ft physical distance.
That does not mean it is an airborne disease, as it seems the virus needs to survive in droplets.
It is no surprise to me that a choir singing could easily spread droplets on to surfaces and inadvertently touch their faces during that time.
Even a heavy breath that expels air and droplets from the lung can cause spread. That doesn't mean its airborne.
But as far as we know, the bare virus does not travel through the air, it only travels in droplets. Although there is some disagreement on how large those droplets are.
The virus isn't truly airborne. The respiratory droplets can be carried in the air short distances, but direct infection from that is extremely unlikely outside of someone literally sneezing in your face.
This is in contrast to diseases like anthrax, where particles can be carried on air currents basically indefinitely and direct infection from the airborne disease is likely.
> people can get infected further away than with larger droplets
Minor nitpick, you can think of aerosol transmission as plume of virus particles. Technically you can get infected long after the carrier has left a closed room, at which point the concept of being "further away" stops applying.
Just look at the list of people who signed the letter.
They are experts in their field but they don't have the expertise to consider the whole picture.
It's possible, that there is some airborne transmission besides droplets, but there is no evidence that it's significant transmission route. To get infected you need big enough dose of virus at once. Just some dry floating particles in the air is not enough.
You claim "If the virus were truly airborne, which it isn't" yet provide no evidence.
But looking at you history you have provided exactly evidence that it is airborne "Video showing microdroplets suspending in air (vimeo.com)" a few months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22776194)
And to quote from another commenter "The part showing how a single cough can create a room-wide cloud of virus that lingers for 20+ minutes in spaces with poor circulation was especially enlightening."
Having watched the vid I can confirm that's what they show, at least as a simulation.
Even the main article says (I'm re-quoting from another of my posts): "There is a big dispute in the scientific community, however, about both the size and the behavior of these particles, and the resolution of that question would change many recommendations about staying safe. Many scientists believe that the virus is emitted from our mouths also in much smaller particles, which are infectious but also tiny enough that they can remain suspended in the air, float around, be pushed by air currents, and accumulate in enclosed spaces" which directly opposes what you say.
How is your parent post not either plain wrong or deliberately sowing confusion? I'm flagging you.
Is there any good reason to research this at all since the virus is mainly transmitted through surfaces and is not in itself airborne? Sure there are drops that can last long enough in the air to infect people but it’s far from the biggest point of infection.
It's not just large droplets that seem to carry the virus but also aerosolized droplets that travel farther when you cough or sneeze and that are emitted from talking and singing.
No, the WHO was right, and still is, epidemiologically speaking. The problem is that there is a difference in meaning between "this virus is airborne" and "this virus can spread through the air via aerosols".
The former means that the virus itself can survive being exposed to the air, which means it can float for hours and spread easily over large distances.
The latter means that the virus can only survive in the air when encapsulated in a liquid, which means it can not hover in the air for long (due to the weight of the droplet) and thus not spead over large distances.
I appreciate the distinction you're making here. I don't have enough facts to prove or disprove it.
But, I'd like to ask: are you suggesting that aerosolized droplets cannot be seriously spreading this disease because they will evaporate almost instantly?
I ask because there is quite a bit of research suggesting that aerosolized droplets are spreading the disease, and can hang int the air for a substantial period of time. Do you think this is wrong? If it is wrong, why do you believe people are suggesting aerosolized transmission?
There are two types of viruses: airborne and not airborne. Airborne can survive for some time outside bodily fluids.
Aerosol == bodily fluid that is still liquid. It is just in the form of very small droplets that are now drying out. Depending on conditions this lasts very shortly. It spreads the virus, of course, but aerosol dries out quickly and viruses that are not airborne die (well.. viruses do not live in the usual sense, basically their proteins get damaged).
Of course if somebody coughs in your direction some of the aerosol can be inhaled or reach your retina or get on your hands and you can get infected.
No, I am not suggesting droplets cannot spread the disease, the opposite is true. Droplets are much better transmitter of disease if they can reach the target.
reply