swansont

Changing the question doesn’t make the answer correct.

You said yourself a wind tunnel has a big fan. Where is the constriction? I ask again: how is one big fan vs lots of small fans different? (same area)

How is one big fan vs lots of small fans different? If you can’t model the behavior, how can you predict what happens?

How about some math/modeling to back up this claim

Most commercial places have ventilation systems that do up to 10-20 air changes per hour. A restroom might do 30. That means the air hangs around for minutes https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-change-rate-room-d_867.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_changes_per_hour Which means that you need a flow rate that is much higher if you want air to only hang around for seconds. That's not "unnoticeably faster"

Retro-fit assumes you have a compatible geometry. What if the ductwork is in the walls?

How realistic is it to expect everyone to re-install their entire HVAC system? At best this would apply to new construction, in places where people don’t mind hanging out in a wind tunnel.

Claimed without support. Faster moving air means the virus can travel further before leaving the room, per the paper I linked to. Meaning you might infect everyone before getting a chance to filter the air. Hot air rises, so exiting through the floor isn't always the best option.

Not the problem described in the paper, which derives from in-room circulation. The air flow from the ventilation system assisted in getting the droplets to travel from table to table, before they would have had a chance to be filtered. We had a high-level person who insisted on stepping over the mats whenever he entered our lab. Grrr. (A tad like Pence not wearing a mask at the Mayo clinic) Anyway, I took to calling it admiral-paper. (And our visitors were referred to as sneetches, from the Dr. Seuss story)

I think even Iowa has cities.

Found this https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article#tnF1 Strong airflow is alleged to be the culprit, since droplets travel further. Filtration doesn’t fix that. Some basis for the discussion, other than conjecture, is needed.

Not my burden of proof. But the scenario offered - nursing homes - has caretakers in close contact with multiple people on a daily basis. Has that been eliminated from being the prime suspect?

Clearly? What evidence is there to support this? What information do you have on air filtration removal of the virus? Can you reconcile your need for a high flow rate with this filtration/exposure plan?

Outside of my area of expertise, but unless the tissue is coated with whatever you’re trying to kill, I’d guess “no”

Inside the lungs even surface-level effects will be damaging. Radiation that only penetrates the top level of cells has been tested (this came up here or in a related thread) - it's in the deep UV. In one sense it's like alpha radiation. Externally not a problem because it's attenuated by the top layer of cells, but very damaging if ingested/inhaled. You would, in effect, be getting a sunburn inside your lungs.

What have the countries which have had the most success done?

Yeah, about Sweden... "Sweden: 22 Scientists Say Coronavirus Strategy Has Failed As Deaths Top 1,000" https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/04/14/sweden-22-scientists-say-coronavirus-strategy-has-failed-as-deaths-top-1000/#1f42483e7b6c

It's kinda like the Stockholm syndrome in that regard. I didn't recall the name, either. I was double-checking which bias it was (wasn't sure if it fell under confirmation bias) and it popped up.

Then it's not a good example for the situation of a place that hasn't been able to get ahead of the spread of the virus (not that Sweden is doing great), and one should note that they are saying they are still a month away from herd immunity - in the capital. We don't know if/how well their strategy is going to work. As a counterexample, one can look at Singapore. Or look at the 1918-19 flu pandemic. The "second wave" was worse than the initial wave.

It's called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (frequency bias). Coupled with confirmation bias.

Try it in your country, and have someone report back.

How can a single entity be in equilibrium? That's like asking "what's the difference between a duck?"

We know one thing that will happen: more people will get sick, and some fraction of them will die. How do we know this? Because we can observe areas that didn't lock down in a timely fashion. The virus spreads when given an opportunity to do so. This isn't a hard problem. Thank you for making the case for social safety nets. Does the financially stable person have the authority to order the poor person into harm's way, when they are not willing to go there themselves?

You're cherry-picking the data. You can't check the premise that "all horses are white" by only showing pictures of white horses.

No, I'm suggesting that the device is dangerous to use, and more so without training and safety equipment. Do you have, for example, UV-safe goggles (or better yet, a face shield)? Do you know to wear skin covering when using the lamp, if it is exposed? Nothing about that phrase suggests it's anything but a source of 260nm-280 nm light. What that phrase suggests to me is that you need other equipment to use it safely, and that's their way of passing liability on to you should you be injured. If you aren't trained, and/or don't get the safety equipment you need, it's your fault, not theirs. They warned you! A lot of things are available on the internet that are dangerous to use for the untrained. They, too, probably have a safety disclaimer on the package or device. But that doesn't stop people from being stupid.