Can someone provide sources for the implied level of risk for going to the store? I was under the impression that large, uncrowded supermarkets are mostly safe if you wear a mask (especially an N-95 equivalent). What’s the remaining risk? Is this a taking-your-mask-off-wrong thing, or maybe getting COVID in your eyes?
It seems to matter a lot how crowded the store is, but for trips to our local Whole Foods this seems way too pessimistic. People mostly don’t talk, stand somewhat far apart, and don’t clump up in groups. The riskiest single interaction is probably talking to the cashier, but you don’t do that for the full 30 minutes.
Agreed that it matters a lot how crowded the store is and how much talking occurs, and that your assumptions seem more realistic.
Some adjustments that come to mind:
It seems like it’d make sense to assume that people in the grocery store are slightly more risky than average, with the assumption that less risky people are less likely to grocery shop indoors and more risky people are more likely to grocery shop indoors. Perhaps using the 10k healthcare or social worker option for risk profile instead of the 7k average person in your area.
I see a pretty significant amount of people not covering their nose with their mask, so maybe “their mask” should be more like 1⁄3 the risk instead of 1⁄4 the risk.
For “your mask”, I don’t know too much about the stuff about how to fit your mask, but my best guess would be to assume it’s more like 1⁄5 the risk instead of 1⁄10.
I agree it’s much closer to “not talking” than “normal conversation”, but some talking does occur. Maybe it’d make sense to use 1⁄4 instead of 1⁄5.
Ballparking it, and assuming a few other minor adjustments, maybe the truth is something like 3x what your estimate is. (It’d be great if the calculator let you make such adjustments inline.)
It sounds like a lot to me if I imagine going grocery shopping regularly, because ‘grocery shopping’ isn’t where I want to spend a large chunk of my risk budget. Suppose that:
My goal is to have at most a 1% risk of catching COVID per year.
Every grocery visit costs me 70 microcovids, rather than this being an especially risky time. (Note that this assumption is false.)
I go grocery shopping once per week.
Then over a year, I’ve spent ~3600 microcovids out of a ~10,000 microcovid budget. If I can cut out a third of my risk for the year, that gives me a lot more room to travel, see friends, respond to emergencies, etc.
Thanks and I was not thinking of the cumulative/trade off value of the assessment. While I’m sure your “over a year” time period was purely illustrative, I would wonder about just what time interval one might want to apply for this type of budgeting approach for consuming your mCs.
For instances, it seems more reasonable (to me) to say “I want to limit my maximum risk of infection to 1%”. Then over some period of time I can sum up the mCs and make sure I keep that under the 10,000 budget defined. Over time then the early spend gets put back in the budget.
Also, if you live alone and don’t have any set agreements with anyone else, then the “budgeting” lens is sort of just a useful tool to guide thinking. Absent pod agreements, as an individual decisionmaker, you should just spend uCoV when it’s worth the tradeoff, and not when it’s not.
You could think about it as an “annualized” risk, more than an “annual” risk; more like “192 points per week, in a typical week, on average” and it kind of amortizes out, and less like “you have 10k and once you spend it you’re done”
Can someone provide sources for the implied level of risk for going to the store? I was under the impression that large, uncrowded supermarkets are mostly safe if you wear a mask (especially an N-95 equivalent). What’s the remaining risk? Is this a taking-your-mask-off-wrong thing, or maybe getting COVID in your eyes?
I would just put the details into microcovid.org and trust the result a good amount. Here is me putting in an estimate of the numbers:
https://www.microcovid.org/?distance=normal&duration=30&interaction=oneTime&personCount=10&riskProfile=average&setting=indoor&subLocation=US_06001&theirMask=filtered&topLocation=US_06&voice=normal&yourMask=n95
This roughly results in 70 microcovids in California, which is quite a bit. I don’t see much reason why it should be lower than this.
It seems to matter a lot how crowded the store is, but for trips to our local Whole Foods this seems way too pessimistic. People mostly don’t talk, stand somewhat far apart, and don’t clump up in groups. The riskiest single interaction is probably talking to the cashier, but you don’t do that for the full 30 minutes.
My estimate is more like: https://www.microcovid.org/https://www.microcovid.org/?distance=sixFt&duration=30&interaction=oneTime&personCount=2&riskProfile=average&setting=indoor&subLocation=US_08069&theirMask=basic&topLocation=US_08&voice=silent&yourMask=n95
Agreed that it matters a lot how crowded the store is and how much talking occurs, and that your assumptions seem more realistic.
Some adjustments that come to mind:
It seems like it’d make sense to assume that people in the grocery store are slightly more risky than average, with the assumption that less risky people are less likely to grocery shop indoors and more risky people are more likely to grocery shop indoors. Perhaps using the 10k healthcare or social worker option for risk profile instead of the 7k average person in your area.
I see a pretty significant amount of people not covering their nose with their mask, so maybe “their mask” should be more like 1⁄3 the risk instead of 1⁄4 the risk.
For “your mask”, I don’t know too much about the stuff about how to fit your mask, but my best guess would be to assume it’s more like 1⁄5 the risk instead of 1⁄10.
I agree it’s much closer to “not talking” than “normal conversation”, but some talking does occur. Maybe it’d make sense to use 1⁄4 instead of 1⁄5.
Ballparking it, and assuming a few other minor adjustments, maybe the truth is something like 3x what your estimate is. (It’d be great if the calculator let you make such adjustments inline.)
To make in-line adjustments, grab a copy of the spreadsheet (https://www.microcovid.org/spreadsheet) and do anything you like to it!
I’m wondering why you find a 70 in a million chance of getting infected as “quite a bit”? Or am I completely misunderstanding the microCOVID?
It sounds like a lot to me if I imagine going grocery shopping regularly, because ‘grocery shopping’ isn’t where I want to spend a large chunk of my risk budget. Suppose that:
My goal is to have at most a 1% risk of catching COVID per year.
Every grocery visit costs me 70 microcovids, rather than this being an especially risky time. (Note that this assumption is false.)
I go grocery shopping once per week.
Then over a year, I’ve spent ~3600 microcovids out of a ~10,000 microcovid budget. If I can cut out a third of my risk for the year, that gives me a lot more room to travel, see friends, respond to emergencies, etc.
Thanks and I was not thinking of the cumulative/trade off value of the assessment. While I’m sure your “over a year” time period was purely illustrative, I would wonder about just what time interval one might want to apply for this type of budgeting approach for consuming your mCs.
For instances, it seems more reasonable (to me) to say “I want to limit my maximum risk of infection to 1%”. Then over some period of time I can sum up the mCs and make sure I keep that under the 10,000 budget defined. Over time then the early spend gets put back in the budget.
Any thoughts on that?
Also, if you live alone and don’t have any set agreements with anyone else, then the “budgeting” lens is sort of just a useful tool to guide thinking. Absent pod agreements, as an individual decisionmaker, you should just spend uCoV when it’s worth the tradeoff, and not when it’s not.
You could think about it as an “annualized” risk, more than an “annual” risk; more like “192 points per week, in a typical week, on average” and it kind of amortizes out, and less like “you have 10k and once you spend it you’re done”