Dang, I just noticed a typo in my past earlier. Maybe that's what confused you. 200 employees (with somewhere between 40-60% in the store at any given time) interacting with 1500 customers (I previously said employees here too) per day (mostly during the day and mostly packed into a few hours per day is an incredibly risky environment. Like mojo said, the number of human interactions and potential infection points is absolutely gigantic. Someone check my math but, if 1% of the employees interacted with 10% of the customers that's 300 interactions a day for 8 months. The numbers are very likely to be much higher than that. Given the hype I would expect more than 4 infections. They deal with that every single day for 8 months and only 4 of 200 people get infected? I don't recall anyone suggesting that cloth masks would be that effective. I mean hell, at that rate of everyone wore masks we could have ended the whole pandemic in 2-3 weeks. But again, that's not what anyone was saying. We were told they would be somewhat effective and help flatten the curve. We were told would lower the spread somewhat and help keep hospitals from overflowing. But again, at the rate Mojo's store saw, shit would have been fine by April. I know that some people (I originally included much more offensive language in here, but I want you to know I'm holding back) are saying cloth masks, staying 6 feet a part, and isolating would have killed it off in America but that was always a pipe dream. Italy's daily cases got stomped into the dirt (less than 200 per day, which is pretty low all things considered) and they've shit back up above 20k. Most of Europe, as someone else said had seen huge increases in daily cases. Casually observing, their current situations reflects about what states of similar size are in.
If you're saying fomites aren't a problem (and please don't assume you have to explain things like that to me; even if I didn't already know what it was, I'm perfectly capable of looking it up) then what are you suggesting is happening with the water droplets? Either they fall to the ground, and onto objects people can touch which is what makes touching your face a bad idea, or they float around in the air to be breathed in later which would make this airborne.
And finally, I see how you could interpret an earlier post of mine as saying the mask data was presented poorly. Let me clear that up. The problem with what we've been told about "the science" so far, is that there's a large contingent of people who run around screeching "THE SCIENCE! THE SCIENCE! YOU'RE ALL SO STUPID! FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!" and then when contradictory studies come out they pretend like nothing fucking happened and continue screeching about "the science" as if it didn't just fucking change. So anyone who was concerned about the previous science and how it didn't sound right gets shouted down for several months, then suddenly everything is supposed to be cool with no recognition that somebody had fucked up before. The best part about science is that it can change. So please stop acting like every new study (or even just the ones you prefer) are the be all end all of a given topic and no one is allowed to disagree.
To prove my point, at the beginning of this it was all fomites. You wore the mask so your spittle didn't land on things and infect others. That's why we stood 6 feet apart, the typical spit blob doesn't travel more than 6 feet. You wear the mask to reduce how much you spread, you stay 6 feet away so you don't get any directly on someone, you don't touch your face because you probably picked it up in the last thing you touched, and you wash your hands because you probably picked it up on the last thing you touched. Those are fomite-spread disease recommendations. But now you, you personally and "the science", say it's not fomites? And it's not airborne? And it's not direct person to person, requiring touch or fluid transmission right? It's not animals or soil/water or food? How is it spreading then? To be clear, I'm not saying it's a hoax. I'm saying we were told it absolutely was not under any circumstances airborne. They even did a study that said it isn't airborne. But now it's not fomites either. And it might be airborne, but probably not. And it definitely isn't any off the other transmission methods.
I'm not a scientist. Not even a computer scientist. I am literally incapable of fact checking any of these people or their claims when they do studies and put out reports. So I have to trust and use common sense. And even when common sense says they're probably wrong, I defer to their guidance, but with a skeptical attitude. I try not to be a dick when I'm right, and I try to (as much as I remember to) recognize when I was previously wrong.
Ugh, against my better judgment I am going to respond to you because I'm a sucker for this thread.
Inevitably, my responses will invite more responses, and then responses to the responses, and so on ad infinitum. I just hope I have the discipline tomorrow to leave alone this topic even though it will inevitably feel only "partially" addressed.
And all I can tell you is, I will try my best to respond to you honestly and fairly with a respectful tone. I'll just do my best to articulate my own personal understanding of this shit as best I understand it. So here's a full disclaimer on all of my responses: these are my
own personal assessments of what I think "the majority of scientists" would say about some of these issues.
Someone check my math but, if 1% of the employees interacted with 10% of the customers that's 300 interactions a day for 8 months. The numbers are very likely to be much higher than that. Given the hype I would expect more than 4 infections. They deal with that every single day for 8 months and only 4 of 200 people get infected?
My understanding of the science of transmission is that the
time spent with another infected person is absolutely crucial. I get the sense that at a grocery store, the "interactions" are
usually quite brief. "Most" infections involve someone being exposed for an "extended period of time", at least fifteen minutes or so. So yes, if two maskless people are standing next to each other at a rally for over an hour, with shouting, the infection chance is high. But if masked ppl pass by each other at a grocery store, the chance of infection is minimal. I get the sense it is on a spectrum: infection chance directly increases based on the time spent in close proximity to an infected person. Also, it makes a
huge difference if one is standing next to a person in line quietly or has a very brief chat (as at a grocery store), as opposed to someone who is singing or shouting or talking loudly or engaged in lengthy conversation.
I don't recall anyone suggesting that cloth masks would be that effective. I mean hell, at that rate of everyone wore masks we could have ended the whole pandemic in 2-3 weeks. But again, that's not what anyone was saying. We were told they would be somewhat effective and help flatten the curve. We were told would lower the spread somewhat and help keep hospitals from overflowing.
IMHO the scientists always made a huge distinction between "significant levels of mask wearing" (my guesstimate off the top of my head, 70% and up) and what they call "universal mask wearing" (my guesstimate of 95% and over). For truly "universal" mask wearing, yes, I believe scientists say we could make a gigantic dent in transmission rates. (Along with very strict social distancing). But it was always considered a "pipe dream" to convince large regions of the USA to actually achieve 95% compliance. I'm reluctant to bring up several Asian countries that have reported success in "crushing" the virus, but.... "many" scientists credit "part" of their success to "universal mask wearing."
My main point in bringing all this up: I would suspect that many scientists would think that a grocery store is a relatively safe place to be. Restrictions regarding mask wearing routinely hover close to 100 percent, and the duration and frequency of close-distance intimate conversation is pretty low. By contrast, restaurants and bars and private homes are a MUCH greater risk for transmission, since ppl need to remove masks when they eat and drink, and ppl are much more likely to engage in extended close conversation.
If you're saying fomites aren't a problem (and please don't assume you have to explain things like that to me; even if I didn't already know what it was, I'm perfectly capable of looking it up) then what are you suggesting is happening with the water droplets? Either they fall to the ground, and onto objects people can touch which is what makes touching your face a bad idea, or they float around in the air to be breathed in later which would make this airborne.
My understanding is that the main cause of transmission is neither fomites not airborne transmission. The main route is called "droplet and aerosol transmission", which I think is categorized separately.
To prove my point, at the beginning of this it was all fomites. You wore the mask so your spittle didn't land on things and infect others. That's why we stood 6 feet apart, the typical spit blob doesn't travel more than 6 feet. You wear the mask to reduce how much you spread, you stay 6 feet away so you don't get any directly on someone, you don't touch your face because you probably picked it up in the last thing you touched, and you wash your hands because you probably picked it up on the last thing you touched. Those are fomite-spread disease recommendations.
Agreed. I believe this is why there was so much confusion back in Jan-Feb-March, because "most" scientists incorrectly believed that fomite transmission was the primary problem. But starting "approximately" late March, the scientific consensus began to change to a focus on "droplet and aerosol transmission." On April 3rd, Fauci announced that masks should be recommended for everyone. IMHO, ever since approximately April 3, the vast majority of scientists have been clear and consistent about what they found re. transmission. IMHO, over the last seven months, the majority of scientists have focused on the following three things: (a) the most common mode of transmission is droplets and aerosols; (B) the disease "might" be considered "airborne", which is usually refereed only to the much smaller aerosols which are not subject to gravity and can hang in the air for minutes or even hours; and (c) fomites transmission was still seen as possible, but far less common than originally thought.
But now you, you personally and "the science", say it's not fomites? And it's not airborne? And it's not direct person to person, requiring touch or fluid transmission right? It's not animals or soil/water or food? How is it spreading then? To be clear, I'm not saying it's a hoax.
Here's the heart of the matter. As I said previously, the primary mode of transmission is "very probably not fomites" , and "the jury is kinda split on airborne." I think it is "we're pretty darn sure that droplets and large aerosols are the main culprit."
At the end of the day, part of the problem in discussing this is that scientists are very open about the fact that there is a lack of universal language regarding the discussion of what defines a "droplet", what defines an "aerosol," and even what defines " airborne."
IMHO the main mode of transmission is illustrated best by the "slow-mo video" I posted earlier. Maskless Infected Person A speaks loudly, and ejects tens of thousands of virus-carrying droplets of water from their mouth. These droplets, like cruise missiles, fly directly from Person A and then land on the lips, or the nostril, or the eyes, or into the open mouth of Person B. Any soft, wet landing spot will do. This is "droplet transmission."
Also, it is possible that "larger aerosols", which can linger in the air for only a few seconds, can be inhaled directly by Person B, especially if they are engaging in prolonged face-to-face discussion. This is called "aerosol" transmission.
These two terms are put together and called "droplet and aerosol transmission."and IMHO are generally considered to be the primary mode of transmission.
A SEPARATE mode of transmission is called "airborne transmission." As I understand it, "airborne" refers only to the
smaller aerosols which are quite resistant to gravity, and can linger in the air for hours, and can also travel large distances due to the ventilation characteristics of a particular area. (Some studies have shown that people could get infected via air-ducts, but this is still controversial.)
So there you have it. I think the primary confusion is based on the discrepancy between what scientists would call "airborne" and what most other people would call "airborne". In my mind, if a droplet is flying through the air and infects someone, I'd think of that as 'airborne." But it's not. Scientists make a distinction between "droplet and aerosol transmission" and "airborne transmission." The word aerosol is particularly troublesome because, depending on the size measurement used, it can be included in either of the two categories ("droplet/aerosol" or "airborne.")
I'm not a scientist. Not even a computer scientist. I am literally incapable of fact checking any of these people or their claims when they do studies and put out reports. So I have to trust and use common sense.
Well, same here. But I've seen those videos of people spewing droplets out of their mouths, and IMHO it is absolutely astonishing to see clear, visual, utterly disgusting proof that we eject unbelievably high amounts of water droplets every time we breathe, even more when we talk, and outrageously copious amounts when we yell, sing, cough, and sneeze. When I was a kid I remember that teasing phrase, "Say it, don't spray it!" Well, that's not true-- we humans are ALWAYS "spraying it". It's totally gross. And it's the engine of spread for this disease.
Final disclaimer: I'm sure if folks try hard enough, they can poke holes in my "summaries of the science", or my particular use of terms and words. And yes, as with everything, whether it's climate change or epidemiology or anything else, scientists will disagree. I am just trying to summarize what in my opinion represents the "vast majority view regarding the science of Covid transmission." IMHO the "vast majority view of transmission" strongly encourages the use of masks, and this encouragement is based is based on science and facts and experiments performed repeatedly and replicated by others. IMHO it is based on science, and not politics.
This disease is spread by the disgusting spittle spew that we humans are constantly ejecting out of out mouths. And the scientists have been saying quite consistently, for over seven months now, that when large groups of ppl consistently wear masks in crowded places, this has a tremendous mitigating effect.
So at the end of the day, no, I don't rely on my own ability to read every study. I tend to put my faith in what the VAST MAJORITY of scientists have reached consensus upon.
Again, I expect some folks to tear this thread apart, and find areas to disagree with. I've just done my honest best to try to present my views on how Covid is transmitted, and (therefore) why masks are so important and helpful. And with that, I hope to take a break from this damn thread for a long while. Peace out Ram bros
Here’s the link again for anyone who’s willing to give it a chance, first 7:30 is main stuff
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ66wJFD3bs
