# COVID - Getting Past the Anger or Embrace it?

## Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, kand said:

My understanding is they based it on in-depth analysis of the 3000 something people on the diamond cruise ship last year. They were able to look at all kinds of things to try to figure out what things increased and lowered risk, and by how much.

as far as what those numbers you got mean though, if they are accurate, then I think they are a lot more significant than you are saying. Going from a 1% risk to a 5% risk isn’t a 4% increase, it means your risk has increased by five times. That’s a huge increase. Stats people? @Not_a_Number?

Looking at the paper from which this calculator is based Mechanistic transmission modeling of COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess cruise ship demonstrates the importance of aerosol transmission | PNAS it look as if they were trying to determining the mechanisms by which the virus was transmitted (surface, aerosol, etc.)  It was more focused on methods of transmission than on what increased or lowered risk.  For example, they were not comparing the results from people wearing masks and those who were not wearing masks.  They have to be bringing in some other method of risk reduction from masks into their calculator.

They do say that the calculation is based upon several superspreading events, and therefore may overestimate risk.  It also makes these assumptions:

• "Assume at least one infector and one susceptible individual are present in the indoor environment,
• Assume the infector(s) is/are at their peak infectivity"

Thus if you want to know what the risk is that you would get COVID in one of those situations, you would need to condition this upon the probability of their being an infected person at the peak of their infectivity at the time.  If there is a 10% chance that the person meets that descritption, then there is a 10% chance of the of the 5% chance that you would be infected, or a 0.5% chance of being infected.  If there is a 1% chance that the person in the room with you is infected, then the chance of being infected is 0.05%.

• Replies 557
• Created

#### Popular Days

Just now, Bootsie said:

Looking at the paper from which this calculator is based Mechanistic transmission modeling of COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess cruise ship demonstrates the importance of aerosol transmission | PNAS it look as if they were trying to determining the mechanisms by which the virus was transmitted (surface, aerosol, etc.)  It was more focused on methods of transmission than on what increased or lowered risk.  For example, they were not comparing the results from people wearing masks and those who were not wearing masks.  They have to be bringing in some other method of calculating risk reduction from hand washing and masks into their calculator.

They do say that the calculation is based upon several superspreading events, and therefore may overestimate risk.  It also makes these assumptions:

• "Assume at least one infector and one susceptible individual are present in the indoor environment,
• Assume the infector(s) is/are at their peak infectivity"

Thus if you want to know what the risk is that you would get COVID in one of those situations, you would need to condition this upon the probability of their being an infected person at the peak of their infectivity at the time.  If there is a 10% chance that the person meets that descritption, then there is a 10% chance of the of the 5% chance that you would be infected, or a 0.5% chance of being infected.  If there is a 1% chance that the person in the room with you is infected, then the chance of being infected is 0.05%.

##### Share on other sites

Quantifying the risk in different indoor situations seems complicated. I doubt that there are that many people who could do that. We know that the most likely place for spread to occur is when people are inside and around other people. It seems simplest to say wear a mask when you are indoors with other people not in your bubble.

Let’s face it we’ve been trying for a year to share the message that wearing a mask is most effective at protecting others, not yourself, and so many seem unable to understand that simple message. I don’t see it going well to ask people to figure out very much about specific risks in specific places.

##### Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kand said:

I  like the idea of (hopefully many of us) wearing a mask when we know we've got a cold (or signs of one) -- and it's become normal enough that maybe that will become the norm here whereas pre-covid, that would have been very strange here in the US (unlike Asia).

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kand said:

I agree that’s really not particularly helpful overall, but someone was asking for such a thing, so I provided a link to the one I recently saw. I certainly wouldn’t expect it to be numerically accurate, but it’s an interesting thing perhaps for people to see the different factors that are at play – – size of room, type of airflow, how many people, length of time, type of mask, etc., etc.

It is very interesting and I wasn’t meaning to be negative about it. I was thinking more about how many people would actually be able to use it accurately to assess risk in different situations and therefore make good decisions in a case by case manner.

##### Share on other sites

For me personally, one of the most disconcerting aspects of of my personal risk management calculus is:

I have no d@mn idea about how well any particular indoor space is ventilated and filtered.

None. At all.

Home Depot is huge and open, with very high ceilings, and they're in the building business for crying out loud, so maybe they have decent venting and filtration?  Maybe?  But OTOH there are no windows, at all.

Whereas the marvelous French restaurant in a wondrously renovated old inn that we used to go to in the Beforetimes has soaring French doors and 5' windows on every wall.  And it's renovated, so maybe they overhauled the HVAC system?  But OTOH in the winter every one of those windows is closed, double-glazed and well sealed.

My three local supermarkets have no windows, and the buildings have all been there for 25++ years.  The only information I have, is that HVAC is likely to be lousy.  Similarly the big box Walmart, not known for incurring expense that is invisible to customers but workplace safety.

The public school cafeteria where I worked two elections, counted ballots and also availed of the wifi when we lost power for 8 days over the summer -- the indoor space where I actually have spent more hours than any other since all this began -- is kinda old and I have doubts about the HVAC... but they hurl open every window, even in the November election and, I understand from parents whose kids have ventured into hybrid IRL class, straight through the winter.

What's better?

I have no idea.  I am singularly unable to assess that risk.  I do not have the data.  I never *will* have the data.  That data is not collectible; every indoor space is different.  It is not possible to glean it.

And yet I am quite certain that HVAC and filtration matter more than any other single variable, including masking.

So I'm left with two options: t1. hrow up my hands and "nothing matters, nothing I can do, let er rip"; or 2. Vastly curtail my time indoors anywhere to the greatest extent I'm able.

It is disconcerting.

• 7
• 4
##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kand said:

I think this is an excellent point. How can we “other” if the person/act/item has become normalised?

##### Share on other sites

Well I sure hope masks work.  MDD started to have a sore throat and elevated temp Tuesday. She is a strep carrier so we assume it's that.  In the morning our Dr. tells us to get a Covid test to rule it out.  DH gets one to so he can work ( critical worker with slightly different rules) if she has a fever.  Well instead he comes back positive for Covid.  He was in a room for 12+ hours the night before with his crew. He always masks and is not symptomatic so hopefully no one else gets it.  Though it's probably where he got it but he was with a different crew early because of OT.   If it takes out a crew let alone 2 there will be serious trouble. It's not like their are subs for nuclear operators.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.