Post 914: Fine-tuning the floor-to-chair aid.

Post #913 was a proof-of-concept.  It demonstrated that you can make a sturdy, portable staircase, suitable for use as a floor-to-chair aid, at home, using nothing but readily available materials and a few simple hand tools.  At modest cost.

That initial design has a lot of drawbacks.  It took a lot of time, used a lot of materials, had a lot of unwanted variation in the cut-up size of those materials, wasn’t really the right size, may or may not stand up well under the pressures generated by the pushup bars (used in lieu of grab rails.)

And so on.

So the point of this post is to fix what I can, to make this faster, cheaper, and better.

1:  I’m sticking with using identical new boxes, at least for now.

I’m sticking with the idea of building these up from packages of identical new boxes (via Amazon).  It gives them a reasonably finished look and, practically speaking, it’s the only way I can make up a set of instructions that somebody could readily follow.  Otherwise, I have no idea what the end user is working with.

2:  You can skip reinforcing the lower boxes.

Savings:  Roughly one hour of time, and six fewer cartons required for the 3-step model.

I suspected this was true from the start.  The corrugated cardboard in these cartons is rated to 32 pounds per linear inch in the “edge crush test”.  That gives a roughly 500 pound theoretical load, for these boxes, before they would fail, as long as that 500 pounds were spread evenly across the tops of the box walls.   (That calculation is based on this short Wikipedia article).

So I tested the theory.  I removed the internal supports from a box at the rear bottom of the stairs.  And when I sat on the stairs, nothing happened.  There is no perceptible difference between the side with all boxes reinforced, and the side where one box is not reinforced.

This works in part because the boxes themselves are strong enough.  But also because the first level of boxes — the part you actually sit on — serves to spread out any loads.

There is a risk here, in that the reinforced boxes are more robust to injury.  You could damage the box wall, and still have plenty of corrugated inside, holding up the box.  With unreinforced boxes, there’s just one layer of cardboard.  If it gets seriously damaged, the box could fail.

I considered adding corner reinforcements to the now-empty boxes, but commercial reinforcements are only sold on large lots.  The alternative of gluing up reinforcements, from layers of cardboard, is unappealing.

For the time being, I’m doing nothing.  I think these short boxes are robust enough on their own.  And if a sidewall gets damaged, just cut out the old box and put in a new one.

This has a lot of benefits.

This reduces the burden of cutting and carton assembly roughly in half.  And means that you save six cartons’ worth of cardboard.  It also makes for a neater overall look, as there will no longer be “overstuffed” cartons that bulge, below the top level of cartons.  It lowers the height of the steps because the tops of these boxes no longer bulge.  And it allows me to customize the height of the steps much more easily.

3:  Pay more attention to form factor/box size; customize step height if needed.

The prototype turned out with steps that are too tall.  I naively thought that a 6″ box would yield 6″ steps.  But in fact, a 6″ (interior dimension) box is actually 6.5″ tall.  Add in some “bulge” from over-cut support pieces, and the steps average just under 7″ tall.

Assuming I can eliminate the problem of bulging boxes, and noting that the hardboard only adds to the height of the first step, I now know what my options are, using stock cartons.

I can find 3″, 4″ and 5″ tall cartons whose other dimensions would work for the other dimensions of the staircase.  Each step adds a foot to the length of the staircase.  I’m assuming that 4′ long is the practical limit, but that’s just a guess.  With those constraints, to get the top step near a common wheelchair seat height (18″ to 20″), I only have three options using stock (uncustomized) boxes:

  • steps x rise, total height
  • 4 x 4.5, 18″
  • 3 x 5.5, 16.5″
  • 3 x 6.5, 19.5″

Anything other rise height or total height would require me to cut down the boxes to a custom height.

If I had to redo the current staircase from scratch, I’d just buy shorter boxes.  As it stands, rather than waste the boxes I have, I think I’m going to shorten them.  This will also be a test of whether or not I could conveniently build one to some exact specification for riser height.  It’s not hard to reduce the height of an empty cardboard box.  Tools for doing that are readily available for under $20 (such as this one, from Amazon).

The only difficult part is resizing the very first step, because that one requires resizing both the carton and the reinforcing cardboard in the carton.

Which brings up the next point.

4: Create a cheap jig for making accurate cuts in the cardboard.

The need for perfectly-cut interior supports is a real drawback.  Uneven supports weaken the load-bearing capability and they make the boxes bulge, which makes the final assembly tough and makes the results look slapdash.  In the prototype, I sorted the supports by size.  But what I really need to do is cut them the right size in the first place.

There does not appear to be a commercially-made “knife guide” to meet my needs.  Searching for “knife guide” bring up kitchen appliances and sharpening aids.

But, in a mini-quest, I think I can easily make one.

  • Take a $3.00 piece of metal corner bead, from Home Depot,
  • Hacksaw into three pieces.
  • The finished device, when viewed on end, will look like an L,  followed by a closely-spaced L and backwards L.
  • The factory cardboard edge rides within the first L.
  • The L and backwards L form a knife slot, duct-taped together, spaced by a couple of used utility knife blades.
  • The whole assembly is connected together by strips of cardboard at either end, slit to hold the knife slot at the exact right distance.

In addition to making the cutting more accurate, I think this will also speed it up considerably.

5  Modify the reinforcement in the top boxes, the ones you actually sit on.

I decided against this.  I’m keeping this the same as it is in the prototype.

The top boxes have to distribute fairly intense point loads from the pushup bars.  And they take high transient dynamic loads as the user moves up and down the stairs.  So this is the part of the staircase that needs reinforcement.

I’m not thrilled with my current method of little cardboard “V”s.  But I’m not seeing anything that looks like it’ll work better, for the same or less effort.

I ended up with the “V”s because I tried to do the standard rectangular interlocking grid reinforcement, but that took vastly too much time.   (As a means of reinforcing a box, a grid is more efficient than “V” because the cardboard supports are absolutely evenly distributed.  But it just takes too much time to produce all that grid from raw cardboard.)

I considered non-cardboard materials for the support, but didn’t find any that met all my criteria (cheap, strong, fast, recyclable).

Spray foam would be expensive and of unknown durability.  It would take roughly two cans of Great Stuff spray foam to fill one box.  (Calculated from this source — each can produces about .31 cubic feet of foam). And that would also mean that the boxes could not be recycled.

I may yet try insulating foam board.  That’s lightweight, cheap, and durable, but very tough to cut well with just a utility knife, and even tougher to cut to an exact size with a knife.  That would also require removal before recycling the cardboard.

All things considered, other than cutting the pieces to an accurate 6″ height, I’m sticking with what I have.

6)  Stiffen up the top surface.

The hardboard panels on the prototype serve three purposes.

First, they stop high point loads from puncturing the cardboard.  E.g., think how easy it is to drive a ball-point pen into a cardboard box.  So they prevent accidents like that from trashing the sitting surface.

Second, they provide a slick and wear-resistant surface.  This both helps the user to maneuver, and prevents repeated use from rapidly wearing through the cardboard.  (The tape, on the other hand, is a different matter.)

Third, they help to spread the loads over a larger area.  But they do this poorly, because the hardboard panels are themselves quite flexible.  For example, if you try to walk on this staircase, you get an unacceptable level of deflection of the step surface under your feet.  Your weight is simply not spread out enough for the cardboard to take the load without deforming.

To spread the load, ideally, you’d have a very stiff top surface, one that wouldn’t readily bend.  The stiffer it is, the better it will spread the load.  And that matters greatly, because the entire strength of the steps comes from spreading the load over a large amount of corrugated cardboard.

I used 1/8″ hardboard because I knew I could cut that by scoring it with a utility knife.  I didn’t go with something stiffer (plywood, say) because it’s too hard to cut (or cut well) with simple (non-power) hand tools.  (And it makes a mess when you cut it.)

I’ve looked at options for a stiffer step (1/4″ MDF, gluing multiple sheets of hardboard together, creating foam-core hybrid materials using insulating foam and hardboard, using thin plywood) and they all have drawbacks (that I won’t bother to detail).

Instead, I’m going to take the scraps of leftover hardboard and add a second layer of hardboard on the outside 10″ of each step.  These will be the “landing pads” for the pushup bars.  Those bars will exert considerable point force, with the user’s entire weight resting on the eight small feet of the pushup bars.  With a 200 pound user, I can plausibly expect a static load of 20 PSI and a dynamic load of twice that.  Whereas the user’s rump will generate no such high point loads.  And so, any reinforcement of the surface needs to go on the ends.

7  Try duct tape.

’nuff said.

8 Try a different assembly routine.

It would be nice if all the tape joints were visible from the outside.  That way, if a box got smashed, you could easily cut out just that one box and tape a new one in its place.  It also took quite a long time to assemble all the boxes, and I have to believe there’s a quicker way to do that.

9  Conclusion

I think that’s it.  Those are all the changes that are believe are feasible for me to do.  So the revised instructions would look like this:

  1. Choose your box size/form factor.
  2. Order your pack of boxes from Amazon.
  3. While you wait, make up your knife guide for accurate cuts.
  4. Buy the rest of the materials locally.
  5. For the three-step models:
    1. Assemble 6 empty boxes, two with handles.
    2. Cut up 6 boxes into strips, or cut scrap boxes into strips.
    3. Assemble and pack 6 boxes with internal reinforcement.
    4. Cut up 2 hardboard sheets (several additional small cuts now required).
    5. Assemble the staircase.
  6. For the four-step models (after buying one more sheet of hardboard).
    1. Assemble 12 …
    2. Cut up 12 …
    3. Assemble and pack 8 …
    4. Cut up 3 hardboard sheets …
    5. Assemble the staircase.

I am guessing that with the reduced amount of cutting of supports, the jig to speed the cutting, and so on, that this will now take under three hours.  And require less effort.

I’ll rebuild the existing staircase tomorrow.  And I’ll build the 4-step 4.5″ riser model when the boxes get her via Amazon.

Post #913: A D-I-Y floor-to-chair aid for paraplegic wheelchair users

This post is now superseded by Post #927.  Ignore the post below, and look at #927 for the final plans for this device.

This design works, but it’s really a proof-of-concept.   I’m now looking for easier ways to build it.  As I figure out improvements, I’ll post them separately, and link to them here.

For example, today (12/12/2020) I tested whether or not the lower cartons need to be reinforced.  They don’t.  The empty cartons themselves are sufficient.  That alone shows that there are faster, cheaper ways to build these steps.

See Post #914 for proposed modifications and a somewhat easier way to do this.  I’ll post a revised set of directions when I rebuild this tomorrow.

Post #917 now gives the final changes.  As it turns out, the only set that’s feasible to build and use, using off-the-shelf materials, is set with 4.5″ riser height and four steps.  I’ll document building that set when the materials arrive later this week.

Original post follows.


 

This post is a set of instructions for creating a broad, shallow, portable staircase.  The idea is that a paraplegic wheelchair user could use this staircase,  along with a set of pushup bars, to move from floor to chair level or vice-versa.

That’s a picture of my wife sitting on the finished steps, left.  It’s meant to illustrate how sturdy these steps feel, as she is perfectly comfortable sitting on them.

This is a followup to Post #886: A floor-to-chair/chair-to-floor aid for wheelchair users.  If you want the background on why I’m doing this, and what this is for, read that post. Continue reading Post #913: A D-I-Y floor-to-chair aid for paraplegic wheelchair users

Post #912: COVID-19 trends: No clear Thanksgiving effect yet; ND data anomaly

Yesterday, North Dakota decided to add persons with a positive antigen test to their counts of new positive COVID-19 cases.  Previously, they did what every other state does, and counted PCR tests only.   (See diagnostic test on this FDA webpage for the difference between antigen tests and the standard PCR tests.)

The backlog of those individuals added thousands of new cases to their totals, yesterday, and generated an apparent spike in cases.  For anyone looking for the effect of Thanksgiving travel in the data, that certainly caught the eye.

But if you look net those cases out of the data, to make the current data consistent with the historical data, ND continues on its prior downward trend.  That’s the red line segment added to the ND data line above.

That’s all by way of getting to my main point.  So far, while the trends are in general not good (outside of the states that had high peak rates last month), the trends are no different today than they were a week ago.  Today is exactly 14 days after Thanksgiving.  And, to may eye at least, so far, there’s no evidence of a widespread Thanksgiving-driven increase in the number of new cases. Continue reading Post #912: COVID-19 trends: No clear Thanksgiving effect yet; ND data anomaly

Post #911: COVID trends to 12/7/2020, Hawaii is the only bright spot.

This is just an update of my state-level graphs, showing the seven-day moving average of daily new COVID cases, based on the NY Times Github data repository.  The sharp squiggle near the end of many lines is an artifact of data reporting from the Thanksgiving holiday.

True new cases generated by all the socializing and travel at Thanksgiving should only start arriving in the data this week, at the earliest.  So all the existing upward trend you see to this point, in so many states, is all prior to the impact that Thanksgiving may have on new COVID-19 cases.

The Midwest states that had such extreme peaks two weeks ago generally continue to see declining (albeit high) new case counts.  Or maybe stable (but high) new case counts.

Pretty much everywhere else, other than Hawaii, the trend is toward higher case counts.  Outside of the Midwest/Mountain states, only Rhode Island has exceeded 100 new cases/100,000 population/day.  But many states are headed for that level, and (e.g.) Alaska looks like it will exceed that level in a few days.

California has broken away from the other West Coast states.  Without proof, I’d suggest that an exceptionally dry November in most of California may have contributed to that (Post #894).  With their Santa Ana winds, and zero rainfall, Los Angeles had numerous days where the outdoor relative humidity was in the single digits.  So California isn’t cold, but it’s surely got dry indoor air.  (By contrast, e.g., Both Seattle (WA) and Portland (OR) had significant precipitation, and outdoor relative humidities were typically in the 80%s.  So the Southern California climate was vastly different from the OR and WA climate in November 2020.)  Weather data were summarized from Weather Undergound historical weather data.

National and regional data follow.

 

Post #910: Virginia is a right-to-dry state? (Corrected! Again!)

If you look for graphic images of clotheslines, you inevitably get a page of crap like the image to the left.  Clothes lines are stereotyped as old-fashioned, or hicksville, or as the case of the one at the left, both.  With a side-order of sexism.

 

 

And yet, indoor dryers are such energy hogs that outdoor clothes lines have received legally protected status in nineteen states.  These are the so-called “right to dry” states.  In those states, a homeowners’ association cannot ban the use of clotheslines.  And this pro-outdoor-drying advocacy group gives links to the enabling legislation in all of them.  (Of course there’s an advocacy group for that.) Continue reading Post #910: Virginia is a right-to-dry state? (Corrected! Again!)

Post #909: Thanksgiving data artifact. I think. Now confirmed.

Edit:  One more day of data confirms that this was just a data reporting artifact.   True Thanksgiving-generated cases, if any, should begin showing up in the data next week.

Original post follows

Based on data reported through 12/3/2020, many (but not all) states are showing large upticks in the seven-day moving average of new cases per day.  As shown above, circled in red.

After looking at the details, I think that’s probably an artifact of Thanksgiving data reporting.  That is, I don’t think this is the start of a rapid increase in cases due to Thanksgiving-related travel.  Initially, I thought that all of that would have “washed through” the data reporting systems by Tuesday at the latest.  But here’s why I’ve changed my mind: Continue reading Post #909: Thanksgiving data artifact. I think. Now confirmed.

Post #908: Hebrews 11:1

Post #906 was about things that can harm us even though we can’t see them.   Seemingly clean household air is, in fact, full of particulate matter, much of it not visible to the naked eye.  But even if you didn’t believe that, it’s relatively simple to prove it.  Just run a box fan with a high-end air filter on the back, and note the buildup on the air filter.  Seemingly out of nowhere.

For most people, dealing with things that you can’t directly perceive boils down to matter of belief.  Your average Joe really doesn’t have much grasp of scientific method, or Koch’s postulates, or clinical trials.  Or science in general, for that matter.

And so, ultimately, for most people, taking proper COVID-19 sanitation measures is a matter of belief.  You have to believe that COVID-19 is transmitted by invisible particles passing through the air.  And your faith has to be strong enough that you’ll take the right actions to prevent that.

So when the Governor of Oklahoma decided to have a day of fasting and prayer, instead of a mask mandate, this struck many people as odd.  And I have to count myself among them.  (Despite Post #567).   Apparently the governor has faith that the invisible hand of God will help his people.  And so he called on the citizens of Oklahoma to pray for those who’ve already caught COVID-19.

But at the same time, his faith in the germ theory of disease is not strong enough for him to require people to wear masks, to avoid catching COVID-19 in the first place. Continue reading Post #908: Hebrews 11:1

Post #907: Social distancing rule + quarantine rule = insanity.

Source:  Japan Ministry of Health.

I’m not confused because I’m stupid.  I’m confused because I’m paying attention to what they’re actually saying.

Let’s see if you can find the inconsistency in current CDC advice.

The social distancing rule:  The CDC continues to focus on “social distancing” as the primary defense against spread of COVID-19.  That means staying at least 6′ apart.  The theory there is that people who cough or sneeze emit “droplets” containing infectious material.  And if you stay at least that far away, you are unlikely to be hit by somebody’s droplets.

AND

The quarantine rule:  If you’ve been exposed to COVID-19, you need to quarantine yourself for 14 days.  (Or fewer — see below).  You need to do this whether or not you have any symptoms at all.  Because asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals can spread COVID-19 quite effectively.  And you could be spreading disease without knowing it.

Does it seem like I have that right, more or less?  The CDC added masks to that social distancing rule, but only after the fact. Only as kind of an oddly-worded add-on recommendation.  And the CDC has recently added some grudging mention of aerosols (tiny drops that can float on the air) in addition to droplet transmission.

By and large, I think the paragraphs above capture what the CDC has told the American public.  Maintain social distancing to avoid the droplets produced when people cough or sneeze.  And quarantine yourself for 14 days if exposed, even if you have no symptoms.  And wear a mask, too.

Now let me get down to the insanity part, by putting those two rules together.  You must maintain social distancing, because when people cough or sneeze, they emit droplets that can travel up to 6′ and transmit infection.  And if you’ve been exposed, you must quarantine even if you have no symptoms and are not coughing or sneezing, because you might transmit infection.

This mish-mosh of internally-inconsistent guidance is an historical artifact.  It’s the result of the way the CDC policies have evolved over time.  In particular, it’s the result of the CDC being unwilling to admit that aerosol transmission matters.  (Aerosols being tiny particles, smaller than “droplets”, that can float on the air well beyond the standard six-foot social distancing barrier.)  And only making grudging and piecemeal changes to its guidance, that kind-of, sort-of, recognized the importance of aerosol transmission.

You can see the apex of that process in Post #822, when the CDC issued and then immediately revoked guidance with clear discussion of aerosols. You can review the long, winding road to get to that guidance, in Post #820. The CDC did eventually produce guidance so larded with weasel-wording on this key issue as to be more-or-less unusable.  You can see that discussion in Post #850.

They key problem here is that if aerosol transmission matters, then social distancing is not an adequate way to prevent spread of COVID-19.  For the simple reason that aerosols routinely spread beyond six feet.  And so, for the CDC to go all-in on aerosol transmission is for them to admit that they offered really fundamentally bad advice to the American public.  And so, they can’t really admit it.  And we end up with the current internally-inconsistent and piecemeal advice from the CDC.

This has a couple of immediate impacts on health care policy.

First, many U.S. states continue to base their own recommendations on the original CDC “social distancing is the main line of defense” message.  And so the effect of the mixed and unclear CDC guidance has been to promulgate state mask mandates that make mask wearing an alternative to social distancing, only if social distancing cannot be maintained. 

Iowa, for example, passed a mask mandated in the middle of November (Post #893).  It requires individuals to wear masks, indoors, in a public place, only if they are unable to maintain 6′ social distancing, and are unable to maintain it for more than 15 minutes.  So in Iowa, you’re required to wear a mask only where social distancing fails for an extended period of time. 

And so, if aerosol transmission matters, and social distancing alone is an inadequate public health measure, the upshot of all of this confusion from CDC is the creation of state-level rules that sanction dangerous behavior.  That Iowa mask mandate tells the people of Iowa that not wearing a mask is good sanitary practice, as long as you aren’t within six feet of an individual for more than 15 minutes.

So Iowa, following the main CDC message, has now told its citizens that it’s perfectly fine to (e.g.) meet somebody for a cup of coffee and have a 10-mintue face-to-face chat.  With no masks.  Because masks are only an needed if you’re going to spend 15 minutes or more in that situation.

Second, more recently, the CDC seems to have finally woken up to the fact that people who don’t feel ill aren’t doing the recommended 14 days of quarantine when exposed to COVID-19.  So they’ve decided to shorten the quarantine period for those with no symptoms.  The theory being, I guess, that the increased compliance with a shorter quarantine more than offsets the handful of individuals who will still be infectious at the end of that shorter quarantine period.

The entire change is aimed at asymptomatic individuals.  If you’re coughing or sneezing, or have any other symptoms, the new rules do not apply.  But if you’ve been exposed to COVID-19 and have no symptoms, you only have to quarantine for ten days (without testing) or seven days (if you get a negative COVID-19 test).   You can read the actual CDC recommendation here.

If the CDC ever gets to wondering why people who didn’t feel sick didn’t stick to a 14-day quarantine, I think it should start by looking at its own advice and messaging.  They start out by pressing that sneezing-coughing-droplets-distancing message.  Then they turn right around and try to tell people that, well, we were just kidding about that whole sneezing and coughing thing.  That doesn’t really matter, after all.  Just do your 14 days regardless.

And, unsurprisingly, a lot of people seem to be ignoring that second message.  So now the CDC is trying to patch that up a bit, by recommending a shorter quarantine for asymptomatic individuals.

But what they really need to do is rethink this from square one.  In light of what we now know, if you could rewrite the CDC guidance from scratch, what should it say?  At the minimum, if you want asymptomatic individuals to take this seriously, you’d start by dropping the whole sneezing-coughing-droplets party line.  Go straight to droplet or aerosol transmission.  Note that social distancing alone is inadequate.

And replace the current patched-together guidance with a single, unified, easy-to-grasp message.  Something akin to what the Japanese have been telling their population from Day 1, shown at the top of this posting.  Compare that, to whatever the current CDC guidance is, and you’ll see that our guidance just does not measure up.

Post #906: The schmutz does not lie.

What you’re looking at above is the end result of using a type of Corsi Box, as described in Post #854.  That’s a fancy term for a cheap box fan with an HVAC air filter (or filters) attached.

Hence the circle of schmutz, on the air filter above, mirroring the circular blade of the box fan.

That filter has been running in the simple setup pictured below for a few months now.  That’s a Filtrete ™ filter literally sitting behind a cheap 20″ box fan, held in place by the slight suction created by the fan on its lowest setting.

At the very least, I can now guarantee that this setup won’t burn out the fan motor.  Not in any short period of time.  Based on the dates on the photos, I’m just about at the three-month anniversary for this filter.

An actual Corsi box is constructed using cheaper (but higher resistance) high-MERV-rated filters.  Corsi recommended using five, literally set up as a box, with the fan as the sixth side of the box.  Instead, I did the obvious thing and used a single high-end 3M Filtrete ™ filter.  It gives good filtration of aerosol-sized particles and has low resistance to air flow, but is fairly expensive.

(You can find discussion of all the common filtration standards in Post #593, which walks through all MERV, MPR, N95, HEPA, and other common filtration standards for air filters, masks, and other air filtration devices.)

 

 

And as you can see, this is about as minimal-effort as it gets.  Unwrap the filter, sit it behind the fan, and turn the fan on low.  It works even though the filter is actually sitting backwards on the fan (because I didn’t feel like tearing off the yellow filter timer on the back of the filter).

The idea of using cheap box fans and filters keeps popping up as a way to make indoor spaces safer.  As outlined in Post #810.  There’s no way to know if this will ever catch on, in part because nobody is going to test this, in any realistic way, as a way to prevent indoor spread of COVID-19.  So even if you use setups like this, as suggested in Post #810, you can’t legally advertise that it reduces COVID-19 risk, because there’s no direct proof that it does.

Separately, based on what has gone on in (say) South Dakota, a lot of important people still can’t quite get their mind around the idea that things they can’t see can harm them.  The idea that seemingly clean-looking air might be filled with tiny little particles that can hurt you.  I guess that’s a bit of a stretch even for those of us who accept the germ theory of disease.

And if you don’t grasp that simple fact, then the idea of filtering the air that you breathe makes no sense.  But what is a mask, if not a crude and portable version of the filter above.  In my case, the mask is literally made out of the same material used in that air filter pictured above (Post #780, Post #807).

So a lot of people don’t quite seem to get it.  But the schmutz does not lie.   Even though I can’t see it, and the air looks perfectly clean, all of that came out of the air in my home.  In any urban area, air that looks completely harmless is laden with particulates.  It’s really no big stretch to go from aerosol particulates from diesel vehicles to aerosol emissions from people.

So, for those people who can’t seem to believe in physical things that they can’t see, it might be worth stopping to ponder just where all that schmutz came from.  On that high-end air filter pictured above.  Some of it is common household dust.  Some of it is PM2.5, aerosolized air pollution around 2.5 microns in size.  And some of it, for this filter, will be as small as the smallest aerosol particles that carry coronavirus.

Post #905: Virginia nears the bottom of the pack

This is how I see the U.S.A today.  Starting from the bottom of the legend, the bright red states all had a high rate of new COVID-19 cases and a very sharp peak rate that occurred in late November.  Moving to the other end, almost all the East Coast and West Coast states have similar low upward trends in new cases.

What I find so interesting is how nicely geographically clustered this looks.

  • Everything in north-central part of the country peaked late last month.
  • That’s ringed with non-coastal states that have a high current trend.
  • Wheras almost all the coastal states (except Rhode Island) have low upward trends (currently under 40 new cases/100,000/day.) or moderate upward trends (40 to 60 new cases/100,00.day).

Details follow.

Continue reading Post #905: Virginia nears the bottom of the pack