We probably aren't hearing about it because it's something we have less ability to protect against.
I remember a popular comment here a while back mentioning that epidemeologists' job is partly public relations, trying to figure out what they can tell the general public that will minimize the viral spread.
Making sure everyone wears masks will, at the scale of the general population, reduce the infection rate by some noticable percent. It's also something everyone can do, and it gives everyone a sense of control over the situation - enough of a sense, at least, to prevent chaos.
Talking about airborne transmission, though? The kind of masks that can protect against that are hard to come by. Not to mention that the virus could enter via the fluid of the eyes (not trying to add conspiracy here, just trying to make a point about the difficult reality of preventing infection [0]). Bio-rated goggles and N95+ rated masks are more than we can expect from a public that's making face masks out of bandannas.
I think we're seeing very pragmatic statements being made, that are tailored to a public that can't enter full biohazard mode and need to not panic.
UV-C light in your air conditioning unit or some higher end filters might solve the recirculation issues, no? When people must be inside, we could probably make it much safer for them to do so even without the equipment you mention.
Another half-baked 'solution' will cut the infection rate by some fraction of a percent, and we'll be right back where we were before: right here, asking why we aren't being told about proper solutions.
Just like the masks, which as TFA is discussing, don't actually address one of the primary transmission vectors.
I am a little confused. It seems that most people knew it was a risk; that's why stores, gyms, churches, etc were closed in the first place, wasn't it? Together with the warnings to avoid inner spaces.
> Talking about airborne transmission, though? The kind of masks that can protect against that are hard to come by. Not to mention that the virus could enter via the fluid of the eyes (not trying to add conspiracy here, just trying to make a point about the difficult reality of preventing infection [0]). Bio-rated goggles and N95+ rated masks are more than we can expect from a public that's making face masks out of bandannas.
plenty of evidence that even a little bit of protective gear helps. it isn't a matter of hazmat-suit-or-GTFO.
I think that's what the parent was saying. The widespread wearing of just about any face covering seems to help on net even if it's probably >50% about protecting other people. Even if higher-level protective gear were readily available, most people wouldn't wear for any length of time and it wouldn't be fitted properly. So just wear something seems to be the most reasonable advice for the general population.
Do you have proof that people would not wear better protection and that it would be ineffective even if they did to due fit issues? Or are you just making an assumption?
The fact that N95 masks were and still are selling for such high prices seems to be evidence against this view. I assume this view is most popular among Americans because Americans seem to represent the majority of anti-maskers.
Where I live everyone wears a mask but very few people wear N95 masks simply because they are more expensive and hard to find. If COVID is short range aerosol infectious as some evidence suggests greater N95 mask availability and usage may affect infection rates at least outside of the US. How significant a difference this might make is simply unknown at this time.
I remember a popular comment here a while back mentioning that epidemeologists' job is partly public relations, trying to figure out what they can tell the general public that will minimize the viral spread.
Making sure everyone wears masks will, at the scale of the general population, reduce the infection rate by some noticable percent. It's also something everyone can do, and it gives everyone a sense of control over the situation - enough of a sense, at least, to prevent chaos.
Talking about airborne transmission, though? The kind of masks that can protect against that are hard to come by. Not to mention that the virus could enter via the fluid of the eyes (not trying to add conspiracy here, just trying to make a point about the difficult reality of preventing infection [0]). Bio-rated goggles and N95+ rated masks are more than we can expect from a public that's making face masks out of bandannas.
I think we're seeing very pragmatic statements being made, that are tailored to a public that can't enter full biohazard mode and need to not panic.
[0] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.085613v2