So, after 6 months of Covid19 worldwide, where's our understanding of the probability of outdoors transmission?
My toy understanding is that the probability of catching the disease is somewhat proportional with the product of the level and duration of the exposure. You can get it after just minutes of exposure in an ICU room where someone very sick has put a lot of germs in the air, or after a few hours in a poorly ventilated restaurant where a mildly symptomatic person has been talking and occasionally sneezing two tables away from you. Getting the virus on a beach seems astronomically improbable, except maybe if a sick person kisses you.
Where are all the peer-reviewed scientific articles that summarize the conclusions of all the tracing that was done in the world?
Based on observations, your assumption that people on the beach are: 1) practicing proper and effective social distancing, 2) properly wearing medical masks with at least a water-resistant layer with high enough (e.g. 95%) filtering capability (not just some fashionable piece of cloth like bandana) 3) doing the above strictly for every single minute on the beach 4) proper wind condition to bring the viral load down to non-infectious level just does not happen in practice. People do not follow strict practices and bump into each other all the time. So your conclusion that getting the virus on a beach is astronomically small is likely invalidated.
I'm not making these assumptions. I think it's virtually impossible to contract Covid on the beach, regardless of masks or social distancing or wind conditions. Why? Whatever germ load someone sick expels via breathing/talking/sneezing/coughing is instantaneously diluted to infinitesimal levels because the ventilation on the beach is very good. If someone farts on the beach, nobody can feel the stink. If someone farts in an elevator, people can still feel that fifteen minutes after.
But, you and I are simply guessing. My question is: where is the science? Why is it silent on this? Why all we know at this point is still the pulled-out-of-a-hat 6 feet of social distancing and "wash your hands"? Why is the media not publicizing more widely studies like [1] that you are 18.7 times more likely to contract Covid indoors than outdoors?
I live in OB, and the idea of any type of enforcement is laughable. I can go down to the area in the article any time, day or night, and buy pot, meth, cocaine, LSD, DMT, mushrooms, heroin, ketamine, etc in less than 10 minutes. If they can't enforce the drug laws, how are they going to do with the mask laws?
Yeah, I used to live down the street from there; and despite being the most square-looking person ever, people would try to buy pot, meth, etc. off of me. City was pretty naive to put that fence up and think it would last more than a few hours. I suppose they could put cyclone fence up, but that would just mean drum circles in front of the police substation trailer at the base of the pier. (On the steps of said trailer, pot is also sold.)
After they leave the drum circle, they transfer the health risk to all the store clerks and medical personnel they approach. If they end up in the hospital, they transfer the financial burden to the insurance, hospital, and public aid systems, at a rate of however many thousands of dollars per day.
As a human rights advocate, though, curious: where is the line, in everyone's mind? Can we use the law on people who don't wash their hands after they use the restroom? Etc
I agree in principle. That said, a law about washing hands would be impossible to actually enforce without some kind of highly intrusive surveillance, which itself would be a severe downside. But a law that wasn’t actively enforced and only existed so posters could say “wash your hands - it’s the law!” would be… fine, IMO… though I doubt it would produce much if any actual increase in handwashing.
We certainly did about the 1918 pandemic, where all kinds of limitations were imposed to attempt to control the spread. The cost/benefit with typical seasonal flu is, obviously, not the same.
I shouldn't enter a store because they're being irresponsible? That seems like putting the burden where it does not belong.
Larger scale: Nobody else should enter a store, because these people should be able to do their thing without "putting anyone else at risk"? That's absurd. They are putting other people at risk, and everyone else shouldn't have to go ridiculously far out of their way to avoid the risk.
[Edit: Oh, yeah. What if I work at the store? At that point, "don't enter the store" is... somewhat lacking as usable advice.]
So we've established nobody is entering your home, and nobody is making you enter a store. So there's zero risk for transmission. Now you say what about the workers? Great! What percentage of stores aren't doing curbside delivery right now?
You have the right to determine your own fate. You can blow yourself up at home. Fine. Nobody cares. You don't have the right to come out and put everyone else at risk, esp. when it comes to a highly-infectious and potentially deadly disease.
Then in addition to committing murder you would have prevented the creation of Apple Computer. Read Steve Jobs' biography by Walter Isaacson to see just how 'hippie' he was while changing the world.
My toy understanding is that the probability of catching the disease is somewhat proportional with the product of the level and duration of the exposure. You can get it after just minutes of exposure in an ICU room where someone very sick has put a lot of germs in the air, or after a few hours in a poorly ventilated restaurant where a mildly symptomatic person has been talking and occasionally sneezing two tables away from you. Getting the virus on a beach seems astronomically improbable, except maybe if a sick person kisses you.
Where are all the peer-reviewed scientific articles that summarize the conclusions of all the tracing that was done in the world?