Beach sneezes: Empiricism beats the hell out of opinions!

[isobars]

As one who has studied hundreds to thousands of published medical studies in an (so far successful) attempt to outsmart countless oncologists who insisted on following multiple devastating and even fatal government protocols, I have problems with this study's conclusions as reported. IMO, it studies mask MATERIALS, not masks. It overlooks leakage around the edges and handling one's face when doffing and donning the mask -- by far the two primary warnings about relying on masks. Then there are the facts that it comes from China, it has not been peer-reviewed, and the media are claiming without support that transmission statistics between people wearing masks are interchangeable with those of hamsters in cages separated only by free-floating mask-material dividers, not even wrapped cages as some media implied.

That's five strikes in my book ... six, if one repeats the biggest problem: it comes from the People's Republic of China, which has endless reasons to continue making $#!+ up about this entire pandemic. I've drawn my tentative conclusions, and won't be holding my breath until the study passes peer medical review.

[windbetty]

do we have any statisticians in the house? I am curious about probabilities on the topic...

What is the probability that an asymptomatic carrier is directly upwind of you while socially distancing at the beach, and coughs or sneezes right upwind of you?

What is the probability that anyone who coughs or sneezes near you is covid+? In the SF Bay Area we have had a total of approx 12,000 cases. Assuming the majority of those have recovered, and active cases are only a fraction of that number, the chances of a covid positive person being next to you in a random place outdoors would be something like .0005% (6,000 active cases (generous assumption that half of all cases are active now) divided by the total bay area population of 7 million around the bay). I am not a statistician so please throw in your probability corrections.

What is the probability that the droplets emitted in an outdoor sneeze, directly upwind of another person, contains the viral load necessary for infection?

I know a recent chinese study looked at over 7,000 covid cases, and found only 1 that was transmitted in an outdoor environment. Does anyone else have peer reviewed data on the probability of outdoor transmission?

I have read that our chances of getting or transmitting covid is related to viral load. So infection is related to the amount of viral load received over a period of time. For an INDOOR environment, I had read that you have to be indoors in close proximity to an infected person for more than maybe 30 minutes. Where does that leave the probability of infection from a random sneeze 6-20 feet upwind of you on a windy day?

There is still so much we don't know. I can only hope and pray that outdoor transmission, while socially distanced, without a mask, is a very remote risk.

Statisticians or epidemiologists, please chime in! Or peanut gallery comments also welcome.

[isobars]

Sounds like the government way of doing things: Measure it with a laser, mark it with spray can paint, and cut it with an axe. Is ANY WSer/kiter going to base his go/no-go decision on some hypothetical fifth decimal point?

A recent study did show -- in a nutshell -- that the half-life of the CV is 6 hours indoors, one to two minutes outdoors. That's good enough for me, and had nothing to do anyway with my WSing choices this spring. It's tougher to find wind than it is to just stay upwind of the center of mass on the shore.

Has CV deterred me from WSing? HELL, no. Will it deter me from going to the gym the minute it opens? HELL, yes. It's all relative to risks vs rewards, both of which are personal calls.

[tomg]

You are all making a very good case for not going to church.

[windsrf]

Amen!

[isobars]

I don't know whether Fauci is looking at newer data or is simply backpedaling. His message is not only changing but also getting quite fuzzy.
Months ago (February?): Masks are very protective. You really ought to wear one.
More recently (Mar, April?): Well, masks protect others, but do little for wearers, maybe even raise their risk by increasing face-touching.
This week: Well, maybe masks are primarily for the optics (of reminding us the fat lady hasn't yet sung). Key word: "maybe". He was quite vague about benefit, but repeated "optics" when questioned.

If he were the only CV guru on the screen, I'd try harder to parse his shifting positions on masks, vaccines, hydroxychloroquine, etc. But given the number and credentials of front-line physicians who dispute his advice, he's become just one more highly informed but possibly overly dogmatic voice. Some of his peers have been using HCQ for 30-40 years with NO harmful effects unless overdosed, and have more recently had great success with HCQ and COVID.

It's much like the eggs/red meat/oatmeal vs NO eggs/red meat/oatmeal advice: If "they" can't make up their minds, I'll do my own damned homework and make up my OWN mind. I'm eating eggs and meat, passing on the oatmeal (carbs), and going windsurfing. And I wash my hands properly before scratching my itchy eyes.

[U2U2U2]

I have not read hundreds of thousands of medical journals, publications , studies.
Allergies, probably the same as you have had since 1970s, different to 19 symptoms.
, but a sneeze is that.
The what if’s :::that Betty asked, are why it’s important that others wear a mask. How does anyone determine where , in doors out doors , was the area of contact, unless they don’t do the other.
The one cruise ship, that wasn’t allowed to dock, California, not sure more than one existed had 3000 passengers, of those 700 tested positive when then tested, that’s 23%. +- .
So In a confined area the risk is rather high, the numerous infections at the same stores, all, indicate this.
There are enough charts projections , ifs and buts, but one for sure I’m going to ignore is anything the Chinese publish

[windsrf]

Part of the problem is: a mask, is not a mask, is not a mask.....

Fauci was probably correct in each instance, but either he or his "interpreters" failed to make necessary distinctions clear.

This from a former CIH, who knows something about masks.

Not that I'm disagreeing with overall thrust of this thread, as I don't.

Cheers, David

[sailwave]

Right on Mike. Thumbs up!

[tomg]

Some sane thinking on the topic (f you are not completely sick of this topic by now)

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/4/24/21233226/coronavirus-runners-cyclists-airborne-infectious-dose