Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sorry but this sounds like junk science.

Nurses and doctors work in close proximity to people who are sick. So 50 cm compared to 2 meters.

This is why their viral load would be more.

Given a default R of 2 to 2.5 what model are you implying makes this worse in terms of viral load given a reduced R? How would this work?

This bit need explaining because it sounds like you are implying with a R of 2 to 2.5 then the average person might get a higher viral load than if R was .9 lets say.




Lets say you have 20 people im a room and one of them has a mild. Now you have up to 20 mild cases.

If 20 people spend a day in a room and 10 of them have mild cases maybe you now have 10 mild and up to 10 severe cases.

In order to be in a situation with many mild or pre-symptomatic cases in the same room the disease must spread fast through society.


I don't think a room would have 10 people with mild cases.

So this needs to be modelled realistically.

I think there's a small chance one person in the room has it for R0 = 2.5 compared with a not quite as small chance one person in the room has it for a lesser R.

Also I also don't think being in a room with multiple people effects load.

I think it's distance. A cough from a person within 50cm is far far worse than 2 people breathing.

So this is my junk science claim, this needs to be backed with numbers. It's not logical R effects load exposure to me, where is this evidence from?

Else this is dangerous information, exactly the same as saying it's just the flu.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: