I think this is really cool. I nevertheless expect perhaps that I would be that a normal office meeting would result in less exposure than this dance. I'm not actually sure where my intuition is coming from, but I'm going to say it's due in part to the increased exertion of the dancers causing more potential virus to get mixed into the air, and that this effect is bigger than the increase in CO2 from exertion, if you follow me. The other part would be that perhaps the measurement is too far away from the center of the dance? Hypothetically, if I imagine finding out that the CO2 levels stayed below 1000ppm even in the middle of the dancers, I'd be less skeptical.

Reply

[-]jefftk4y20

I would also expect less exposure in a normal office meeting than at a dance, but I think my expectation is mostly coming from people's faces being farther apart? I think this isn't quite the same as what you're saying: if at a future dance I brought the meter to the middle of the hall and stood there and found that CO2 levels were similar, that doesn't mean that if I were to strap the meter to the my face (and route my own exhalation elsewhere) I would see the same levels?

Reply

[-]jp4y30

I would also expect less exposure in a normal office meeting than at a dance

How do I square that with:

so I would say our ventilation was successful at keeping us from going above standard indoor exposure despite the number of people and active movement

I think "faces being further apart" is basically what I mean in the final two sentences.

Reply

[-]jefftk4y20

Yes, sorry, that was confusing. In thinking about how risky a contradance event is I model it as [general air quality] * [closer to people's faces] * [effect of masking]. I was only trying to talk about the first term, since that's the part that can be controlled by choosing whether to have the dance inside/outside, and how ventilated you can make the space.

Reply