1. The face shield (used by medical professional on top of PPEs) in that study are different from the face shields that Filipinos are using.
2. The virus and the droplets evidently still lingered in the air pointed out by this study. (Probably waiting to be sucked by the suction mechanism brought by a person moving with face shields on)
3. Bartels et al. (2021) pointed out that even though barriers and shields protect people at initial impact of the emission, the droplets will linger for some time due to the constriction brought by the barriers/shields. The study also observed slow settling velocities.
4. In contrast to the setup of Wendling et al. (2021) where the simulated scenario was a short but intense exposure condition, Wang et al. (2021) pointed out that the non-sporadic releases like breathing and speaking releases more virus hence low-momentum scenarios are concerning
5. Bagheridad et al. (2014) detailed a case study where the barriers of the office cubicles actually allowed the airborne tuberculosis bacteria from an infected worker to linger longer to infect the worker who occupied the cubicle that the infected worker vacated.
6. The UK Environment Modeling Group (2021) also assessed that constriction of the flow around an enclosed space allows the viruses/particles to linger longer. These actually create dead zones where viruses linger and nestle.
7. And finally, if I were to offer some engineering advice, universal masking was already proven to be effective enough: Engineers would recommend: (1) What is already enough. (2) What is also accessible for the use of many.
Spend tons for an extra 1%? Is he out of his mind?
And to throw back the question I was often asked about (which led me into simulating some more cases): indeed, Wendling et al.(2021) did the scenario where the person at risk is directly facing the source, how about the instances where the person was facing sideways or opposite?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I advise people to subscribe to vital weather information from weather agencies and reputable scientists with their reputations at hand, since accountability forges trust.
I also would want to you to sit through and read through this thread that gives complementary information🧵
It is also important to anticipate and know where the winds will be coming from due to what's called wind exposure affecting the characteristics of typhoon winds, on how strong and/or consistent they will be depending on your location.
Winds at sea will experience little to no dissipative effects. Therefore the winds will be consistently strong.
The peak gust (bugso) will not be far on how strong the sustained winds will be.
Our study that developed CO2 monitors that informed occupants of the relative risk that they may be subjected to due to airborne diseases transmitted through shared room air transmission has been published. #CovidIsAirborne
Using a multivariate method, the ventilation rates of different indoor spaces are determined and used for the subsequent computations using the Wells–Riley model to derive the respective infection risk, particularly of COVID-19.
"Infection risks are determined to be higher in indoor spaces with low ventilation rates. However, having high ventilation rates does not mean low infection risks as smaller spaces will also have higher infection risks."
High humidity also attributes to high infection rates and deaths due to Covid-19.
Shown below are the trends derived from the correlation between Covid-19 deaths and relative humidity. 60% RH is the Goldilocks Zone: lesser or greater than that results in the increase of the risk
Why 60%?
It has to do with two things: (1) lessening evaporation rates due to inhomogeneous mixing and (2) rate of condensation which attributes to the increase of pore pressure within the mask.royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rs…
Countries above the tropics experience case surges during their winter season when relative humidity is low. The hot and humid respiratory emissions will mix with the cold and dry indoor air resulting in higher evaporation rates,
When used in physical settings, the Cochrane method and RCTs are mere pretentious eminence-based assertions masquerading as empiricism (A thread).
It is important to note that the interventions mentioned are physical in nature, not clinical and medicinal. (1/n)
We have two studies that use the Cochrane method:
The first one is the study headed by Derek Chu (funded by WHO) in 2020, which has determined, using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale & Cochrane method, the effectiveness of face masks in stopping transmission. (2/n)
The second one, headed by John Conly, uses the Cochrane method whose results are being interpreted as "evidence" against face masks.
In fact, the study pointed out the inadequacy of the study design due to the high risk of bias when dealing with physical interventions. (3/n)