Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Coronavirus/COVID-19
Reload this Page >

Some say the end is near

Coronavirus/COVID-19 Discussion of the novel coronavirus

Some say the end is near

Old 11-24-20, 02:30 PM
I'm cross-chained
livedarklions's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 8,024

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Motobecane Fantom CX; Giant OCR A1

Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4167 Post(s)
Liked 3,111 Times in 1,765 Posts
Originally Posted by Clyde1820 View Post
Didn't say "clouds" of anything were raining down from the sky.

Just pointed out the simple fact that live viruses and bacteria have indeed been found in the air column great distances beyond apparent sources. And that bioaerosols have contained infectious agents for hours (ie, with measles) in air.

As for the stupidity or intelligence of the questions that exist, it's still quite open as to how long this specific thing lasts, how far it can travel, what the viral load needs to be in order to risk transmission. Stupidly or intelligently, some of the top scientists in the world are examining exactly these questions.

Last month (Aug. 26-27, 2020), for example, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine held a workshop to discuss much of the latest research and results known to-date on SARS-CoV-2. They've published the proceedings, along with a Proceedings in Brief for general release: click.

In short, according to them: To-date, at least as of the end of October of this year, it's still unknown how long this thing can survive in bioaerosols, and still unknown how far it can travel while still remaining viable and infectious. (Though, clearly, distance and a number of other variables can greatly impact it.)

All I suggested was exactly that. That it's simply unknown, even with as much study as SARS-CoV-2 has gotten in the past year.

One can believe it's all stupidity to continue such questions in a situation where what's known is still open, not fully understood (by their own admission), and being evaluated. The scientists in the field are continuing to explore and question, for all of those reasons, as evidenced above, for whatever that's worth. Which people can accept or disregard.
This is one of those perfect examples where someone's googling skills are just good enough to post a link tangentially related to the subject they're arguing, but they're not actually literate enough to know that the link proves exactly the opposite of what they're asserting. If you actually bothered to read the publication you linked, you'd notice that literally EVERYTHING in there concerned uncertainty in the best strategies regarding limiting airborne transmission "indoors" or "in a room". In fact, the only references to outdoor transmission at all was to note that it was universally acknowledged that outdoors is safer than indoors and ".Transmission in outdoor settings has been much less common than indoors." Oh, and sunlight drastically reduces the half-life of the virus. That's it. You need to avoid crowds outside, and wear a mask when you do need to be in a crowded outdoor situation, but generally outdoor exposure is such a low-order risk that virtually no research is going into how best to manage it.

By the way, the scientific uncertainty in the indoors setting is to what extent the two meter limit is the actual limit and/or if the virus can accumulate in the indoor air over time. No one in their right mind is even looking at the possibility that the virus can travel in the air over miles.

You've grossly understated the amount of scientific knowledge there is on the subject and taken that as license to claim immunity from being criticized for engaging in stupid, uninformed speculation.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:
Old 11-24-20, 05:58 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,290
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 207 Times in 157 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
If you actually bothered to read the publication you linked ...

... but generally outdoor exposure is such a low-order risk that virtually no research is going into how best to manage it ...
Read it, and viewed most of the presentations and discussions, as well has having read most of the cited and referenced support material and other reference works. From this along with several others.

Outside a lab, outdoor transmissibility is a much more difficult environment to examine, to be sure.

Indeed, dispersal rates, impact of sunlight/UV, distances involved between hosts ... all are examples of variables that will impact any airborne-transmitted pathogen. Obviously. Outdoors is a tough environment with variables hard to control (for testing). Again, obviously. Which are primary reasons why much research isn't done in the area.

Following the SARS outbreak in 2002-2004, there were some studies that investigated "spreader" events in apartment complexes, healthcare and related risky settings, to examine the potential for airborne transmissibility. (SARS-CoV-1 isn't quite the same as SARS-CoV-2, though, so it's unclear if it's at least as easily transmitted; no doubt many studies will come along exploring exactly this question, to the point it'll be well understood for this one.)

Some studies point to the ability of exhaled (smaller-particle) aerosols remaining in the (indoor) air for potentially hours, particularly if airflows are dynamic (and not merely closed-up rooms). Some studies have suggested this SARS-CoV-2 can survive for several minutes with (simulated) sunlight UV; which is a lab test situation and not necessarily directly (fully) correlated to varying environmental conditions out of doors.

Anyway. Point was, simply, it's unclear just how far this novel virus can travel to the point of transmitting to another. Respiratory aerosols can travel, in many studies noting indoor travel can exceed 8+ meters, and that's without airflow dynamics that HVAC, open windows, movement of persons about the space all bring to a situation; let alone the difficulty of evaluating an outdoor situation.

A much lower risk? Of course.
Low enough to disregard? By comparison to indoor threats, most researchers seem to assume so.

And so, it is unclear and will remain so, reduced comparative threat though it obviously is. Until the evaluations are made. Until then, it's a question whether there's still risk or no risk in, say, a park, or on a run or ride across the street from others, or any other situation where distances over many minutes might carry sufficient virus to other hosts.

Wasn't suggesting how far. Was simply pointing out it's still largely unknown.

As for underestimation of what's been evaluated, one would think that, over the past three-fourths of a year, there would be greater general knowledge of any such conclusions about the risk area. There's little to nothing in the literature, though, as mostly it's lab evaluations and some very specific indoor risk settings. Instead, the general consensus seems to be: it's not nearly as risky so traditional assumptions will be continued and it'll remain a back-burner question. Which is fine. It'll just continue to be an unknown. Which really was the only point: it's not known what the real risk is, how far far enough is, not in dynamic outdoor settings.
Clyde1820 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.