COVID-19 and bad information

I was thinking of writing a bit on all of the bad information. And had even gone so far as to write it up as a draft here. But, there were bits I didn't want to publish because I didn't want to be wrong, and thus be a part of the problem.

One of those points I didn't want to be wrong about was catching the virus from packages, surfaces, etc...

Basically, from what I've seen, heard and read, the primary means of spread of COVID-19 has been from prolonged contact in a poorly ventilated indoor space.

While there may be some number of cases caused via other means, it seems statistically significant how many cases are linked this way. And I say that because there are actually FAR more ways we interact with each other. And those interactions would be much harder to contact trace as well.

Knowing everyone who came into contact with a package. Or who passed by each other briefly outdoors in public or even passed quickly through a super market. These are cases which would lead to either a much higher number of cases of unknown origin, or of these cases being more highly reported. And that isn't happening.

What also isn't happening is that this information isn't being incorporated into other studies. And then studies are being reported on and providing poor or misleading information.

The problem is, there is actually a huge difference in the type of data which is useful in scientific circles compared to what is useful in public compared to what is useful somewhere like a hospital.

Given the data, it would seems like how long the virus can live on surfaces is really only useful in healthcare circles and for the extremely at risk. The numbers tell us; people don't seem to be catching it in this way. And disseminating this information to the general public spurred people to quarantine and/or disinfect everything coming into their households. And while I don't have a problem with people doing things that make them feel safe, some people even shamed others for NOT doing it.

And the fact is... while the studies weren't lying, the concern it caused wasn't supported by the data.

I would say the same for arguments that the disease is "airborne" or that non-medical masks don't work.

Firstly, on the airborne topic. If this were a true airborne disease like Measles, we would be FAR worse off. There is some truth to the studies. Some amount of the disease appears to travel on aerosols small enough to stay in the air for some hours. But, this seems largely confined to poorly ventilated indoor areas. And while some number of cases may have been caused this way, it doesn't seem to be a primary transmission vector.

And if it were a major risk factor it would be THE primary transmission factor. And, again, we know it isn't. A primarily airborne infection would simply produce a disease too difficult to ever contact trace with any degree of efficacy.

Which brings me to masks and the 6 feet rule. Again. It isn't that the statements aren't true. So much as they aren't as relevant as they seem. Droplets of different sizes will travel different distances. What is important is the odds of a droplet being a certain size, and whether or not that translates into a significant risk of infection.

And once again, the types of cases we're seen tend to support the theory that the most viable transmission path for COVID-19 is actually via the larger droplets, or that the required viral load compared to what is delivered on the smaller droplets is quite high.

Thus, the 6 foot rule is probably a very helpful tool. But, if you're lingering talking to people or staying near people. Especially indoors, you're diluting the odds the longer you persist.

Lastly it masks. I read 2 articles recently stating that they're useless.

One focused on their use as a "shield" to stop YOU from catching it from someone else. This is NOT the use case that is being advocated. And the article admitted to their being some positive benefits in protecting other from you. So, while the article was titled to argue against their value. If you actually paid enough attention it ended up supporting the arguments. But, I doubt many would. And it misses a fundamental point; since it does appear to work well in this capacity, if the overwhelming majority "masked up" it should be a very effective preventative measure.

The other article basically just said "it can ride on particles smaller than these masks can stop, so it isn't safe". It is true that you will, if sick, cough or sneeze or breathe up contaminated particles smaller than the masks can block. Non-medical masks shouldn't be relied on in hospitals and care homes for sure. But, the article ignores basically everything else.

Primarily, it changes the direction of the air flow and reduces the distance of the spread. This is valuable. Also, while there are small particles which may linger or even shoot straight through the mask, as mentioned above... the evidence doesn't really support this is a primary infection vector. So, the larger droplets the masks are catching or diverting are likely having a substantial impact on containing the spread.

And, early evidence seems to suggest this is true.