{"id":136,"date":"2020-10-08T23:15:00","date_gmt":"2020-10-08T23:15:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/covidqanda.org\/?p=136"},"modified":"2020-11-08T23:18:32","modified_gmt":"2020-11-08T23:18:32","slug":"is-plexiglass-actually-effective-in-deterring-covid-19","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/covidqanda.org\/?p=136","title":{"rendered":"Is plexiglass actually effective in deterring COVID-19?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Question:<\/strong> Is plexiglass actually effective in deterring COVID-19? While it may protect against direct spray, isn\u2019t one of the big issues virus traveling due to air circulation, which means that unless you\u2019re quite literally encased in a box, you\u2019re still facing exposure?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Answer:<\/strong> You\u2019re right; in the context of last night\u2019s debate, plexiglass probably did nothing. Where plexiglass comes in handy is for limiting droplet transmission in close quarters (like a pharmacist giving you your prescription). However, since the two people on stage were seated 12 feet apart, it\u2019s unlikely that the plexiglass would have served as a barrier to droplet transmission \u2014 the droplets just wouldn\u2019t have been propelled that far. So now what we\u2019re talking about is whether plexiglass helps prevent airborne transmission. And in that case, plexiglass as used in last night\u2019s debate was ineffective \u2014 it would not have stopped tiny droplets that float through the air. Mind you, to cause infection, these tiny droplets would have needed to accumulate, which is where ventilation comes into play. Indeed, the airborne transmission events we\u2019ve observed have generally included the following factors: indoors, poorly ventilated, prolonged exposure (>15 minutes), and oftentimes loud (incl. people shouting\/singing). If you want to read more, here are a few resources and articles you might find informative:<\/p>\n\n\n\n