Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Coronavirus: The Thread

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Coronavirus: The Thread

Old 5th Jul 2020, 11:50
  #8161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 962
Sneeze simulator?


Last edited by currawong; 5th Jul 2020 at 12:06.
currawong is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 02:41
  #8162 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 80
Posts: 4,869
I fear for my children and grandchildren. This is taken from Quora under the copied heading. Much of what the professor says we know, but there are some things I was unaware of, and deeply concerned about. I am however rather surprised about his reuse of masks, but he's the expert.

I WON'T RUN THE QUOTE " AS IT MAY AFFECT THE GRAPHICS.

Ed Taboada, Ph.D. Molecular Biology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Ottawa (1999)
Updated Sat ∑ Upvoted by Timothy Sly, Epidemiologist, professor, Ryerson University, Toronto,Why is the CDC now reporting that COVID-19 does not spread easily from touching contaminated surfaces?

I wasn’t going to answer this since there are plenty of fine answers already, including Robert Devor's answer. And since he’s a fellow microbiologist, maybe I’m a little biased.

But I had to write an answer as a rebuttal to Paul Noel's answer, which serves to illustrate what is wrong with our world. Somehow, a public health issue has become a struggle over politics and the culture war between those on the left and those on the right. A debate over the spinning of scientific evidence as if this is just a matter of opinion, of punditry between political hacks on either side of the aisle debating the relative merits of their position as political theater for an audience.

This is about public health.

According to Paul, the primary mode of transmission for this novel coronavirus is via touch and contaminated surfaces, i.e. fecal/oral. As a former research scientist, he should know better. That is insanity and goes against everything we know about the SARS family of coronaviruses and what we have learned about this particular variant (SARS-CoV-2).

The CDC had the testing debacle and their overall response has been spotty, primarily because of Director Redfield, who may be a good scientist but is a terrible leader that is trying much too hard to toe the line on what the administration deems acceptable in terms of public messaging. And yet it is more than well-established that the rank and file scientists at CDC were absolutely alarmed by the emerging problem in Wuhan, including Nancy Messonnier, who warned about the gravity of the situation, the likelihood that the pandemic would be reaching our shores and the fact that in all likelihood, life would not be going back to normal any time soon (Top CDC official says US should prepare for coronavirus 'to take a foothold'

; CDC prepares for possibility coronavirus becomes a pandemic and businesses, schools need to be closed). And she was excoriated and put out to the dog house by the administration for it because it spooked the markets; a no-no with the administration. And sadly, the president got huffy and puffy about it (Trump claims public health warnings on covid-19 are a conspiracy against him; Timeline: How Trump was out of step with the CDC during coronavirus response) and refused to meet with his public health officials to get debriefed on the emerging pandemic for several additional weeks. When unchecked, this virus has an exponential rate of spread; each week doubled the number of cases and deaths. Had the president met with his public health folks immediately upon returning from his trip to India as opposed to weeks later? well, I’m going to let you do the math on that.
Wait. Somebody did. Almost 36,000 U.S. coronavirus deaths could have been avoided if social distancing began a week earlier, study finds

.
Except that the president’s temper tantrum wasn’t for one week.
So lots to complain about in terms of the CDC’s response to this pandemic. But let’s put things in context. They warned the administration and it refused to heed their recommendations, and this is still happening. As they say, you can lead the horse to water but you can’t make it drink it.
People expect scientists to get it all right immediately when something comes up. This is a novel coronavirus for chrissakes. All experts can do is go by what is known about related viruses. So they turned to experience with SARS and MERS; it turned out to be wrong because novel coronavirus:
  • SARS and MERS do not lead to a large proportion of asymptomatic infections compared to SARS-CoV-2. The symptomology of SARS and MERS is much more serious, so the infected are easier to spot because they present themselves through the severity of their symptoms.
  • It turns out that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 are most infectious 1–2 days before the onset of symptoms if they ever develop any at all. Many people who are infected with the virus simply never develop any symptoms or the symptoms are so mild that they are essentially absent. And yet people are infectious just the same.
  • SARS and MERS infections sit lower in the lungs, so it takes a much greater force of expulsion via coughing for those viruses to be transmitted via infectious droplets compared to SARS-CoV-2. This means that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 appear to readily transmit the virus even if they don’t have a severe cough.
  • Unlike SARS and MERS, it takes a week or more for people with severe SARS-CoV-2 complications to get there. So someone can be infectious and functional for quite a while before being hospitalized.
All of these features of a SARS-CoV-2 infection led to a perfect storm that has caused a worldwide pandemic, unlike SARS and MERS. These features led to massive community transmission in which even those with no obvious symptoms readily comprised a part of the pool of viral spreaders. And unlike SARS and MERS, which experts feared might develop into a pandemic but fizzled out instead, SARS-CoV-2 spread insidiously and in undetected waves of infection. To those of you upvoting Paul Noel’s answer, I’m going to leave you with some facts that should challenge the notion that the transfer from contaminated surfaces or fecal/oral route plays a more important role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission over the respiratory route.
Please read me loud and clear, I am sure that transfer of the virus from contaminated surfaces and the fecal/oral route also plays a role, but it is not the primary mode of transmission. THAT is what the CDC is saying.
I am borrowing this from Erin Bromage’s wonderful blog piece The Risks - Know Them - Avoid Them

(if you have not read that piece then please do so immediately; chop, chop):



The first image comes from this paper, COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with Air Conditioning in Restaurant, Guangzhou, China, 2020

, in which eight people got the virus following exposure while sitting at a restaurant. For your reference, A1 in yellow is the index case. All other circles were people sitting in either the same table or in adjacent tables that ended up becoming infected. Please also note that people in other adjacent tables did not become infected, and apparently this fits with the airflow from ventilation, which might have kept those folks from being exposed.
The second image comes from this paper, Coronavirus Disease Outbreak in Call Center, South Korea

, in which nearly half of the people at a call center in South Korea (94 out of 216 employees) were all infected. Unless the index case was spreading his/her feces around (hey, it could happen!), then the data is pretty consistent with airborne transmission. Also, note that the index case sat on the side of the floor with all of those little blue chairs or people or whatever. And note how few of those infections occurred among those on the other side of the floor.
We also have the data on that choir practice in WA where 45 of 60 people at a choir practice in an enclosed space ended up becoming infected. These folks, sadly, were well aware of the virus and they took preventive measures to limit the spread. People limited their personal contact with each other, they avoided sharing songbooks, etc. So no touch or fecal/oral transmission, in other words. And yet, those measures were no match against a virus that is primarily transmitted via the airborne mode. Most of them became infected. Two died.
Certainly, even back in the days of the original SARS epidemic, it was well-established that that coronavirus appears to be transmitted via the airborne route because people living in an apartment complex started becoming infected. You can have a peek at the paper here: Evidence of Airborne Transmission of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Virus | NEJM

.
So all this to say that we now know the primary mode of transmission for this novel coronavirus. And it is primarily airborne. And people like Paul Noel are spreading disinformation when the data are pretty clear. I have no doubt that Paul is drawing on his expertise and years of experience to make a call on fecal/oral transmission.
But he is utterly wrong on this one.
And people are upvoting the answer because they want a license to not have to wear masks. It is a culture/political war after all. The places* that are currently exploding with COVID-19 cases long after New York City and New Jersey started simmering down are places that had it easy early on and where lots of people are giving up on physical distancing and wearing masks.
* As per the Washington Post

, since the start of June, 14 states and Puerto Rico have experienced their highest seven-day average of new coronavirus cases since the pandemic began. The states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
A mask cannot stop a naked viral particle from entering your body via nose or mouth however people don’t really shed naked virus, they shed virus inside droplets and bioaerosols and these most certainly can be absorbed by a mask. Look at this footage if you don’t believe me: Visualizing Speech-Generated Oral Fluid Droplets with [email protected] Light Scattering | NEJM

. It is not perfect, but by absorbing a majority of droplets large and small, a mask can greatly reduce a person’s exposure to the virus.
Does it have to be an N95 mask? An N95 mask would be ideal, but we should leave those for medical personnel and other folks who have to deal with the public all the time. A multi-layer fabric mask will do, preferably one made of fashionable fabric, with a rear-facing pocket that allows you to insert filter material and with a nose wire to adjust snuggly around the bridge of the nose. I use 3 layers of conical coffee filters in mine and I also wear “ear savers” to attach the elastic loops around so that the mask is nice and snug on my face without hurting my ears.
Lastly, I know that early public messaging regarding masks was about how adjusting a mask with your hands and contaminating them could get you into bigger trouble than not wearing a mask at all. Quite frankly, that was terrible advice. Quite possibly among the worst public health advice ever. You cannot catch SARS-CoV-2 by merely contaminating your hands with it. You have to leave your hands contaminated and then proceed to smear the virus all over your multiple faceholes. You wash your hands religiously and the risk is greatly mitigated. But you most certainly have a much greater likelihood of catching the virus if you inhale infectious droplets, as the case reports above show (the restaurant, the call center, the choir practice). Those cases happened months ago.
Why are we still debating this?
Sure, wearing a mask is not pleasant, but if you are concerned about virus contaminating the surface of your mask, then contaminating your hands, then contaminating your face because you didn’t wash your hands, maybe you should be more concerned about inhaling the virus in those infectious droplets contaminating your (non-existent) mask in the first place since that mainlines it straight into your lungs. Moreover, are we telling people that we can’t trust them to wash their hands regularly? I don’t expect you to smear feces all over your face after going to the bathroom any more than I would expect you to smear SARS-CoV-2 all over your face after touching your mask.
TL;DR: What the CDC is saying is far more nuanced than the OP’s question implies. They are merely saying that the larger risk for this novel coronavirus is for airborne transmission. There is the possibility of transmission via touching of contaminated surfaces and touching of the eyes/nose/mouth, it’s just not the main mode of transmission. So pretty please, with sugar on top, wear a friggin mask OK? you should still physically distance, you should still not be meeting with all of your friends in large groups, you should still be avoiding enclosed spaces filled with lots of other people, you should still be washing your hands religiously and not touching your face. With all of these measures, your masked self can head out into the world and we can limit the spread so that the economy can get back to somewhat normal and so that we can slow-walk the march to herd immunity without overwhelming the medical system.
ps. based on a comment by Marceline Horsenback, please let me also reiterate that I also consider touching contaminated surfaces as a potential source of transmission. It’s just that the potential for infection through touch is much lower than through inhaling a respiratory virus carried by infectious droplets and bioaerosols emanating from an infected individual. I wear a mask because it helps to absorb the bulk of incoming and outgoing droplets large and small. That protects others from me and my potentially infectious droplets. And it somewhat protects me from others and their infectious droplets. I just wish others made the same choice in order to protect their communities.
pps. I disinfect my groceries, I disinfect my parcels after delivery. It’s not like I am ignoring surface contamination. But often, I just let stuff sit around for a couple of days since the virus is inactivated by ambient conditions over time anyway. As a matter of fact, I don’t wash my masks as soon as I get home either. I have 10 masks that I rotate, the last one that was worn goes to the back of the line. By the time it’s ready to go on my face again, it’s been at least a couple of weeks, if not longer. Then after wearing a couple of times, the whole lot gets washed.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 07:07
  #8163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Not sure if Hancock is just ill-informed, or toeing a political line with this nonsense:
There's a name for them: aerosols!
Wee Willy Winky is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 10:06
  #8164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bomber County
Age: 69
Posts: 161
Food for thought Rivets, I'm chair of a 70-strong choir - looks like we won't be meeting 'til 2021 because even if we found an outdoor space we would still need to distance further than 2 metres and so you lose the synergy of the parts.
radar101 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 10:32
  #8165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
The one thing that pretty much always gets missed in comparisons between the risk presented by direct transmission (i.e. inhaling airborne droplets containing the virus) and indirect transmission (i.e. becoming infected by transfer, usually involving the hands) is time. The impact of the time exposed to the risk of infection is really significant.

Someone that is infected, yet breathing normally, will only be expiring a relatively low concentration of infective droplets. Probability comes into play when it comes to the risk of them infecting someone close by, and the longer they are close to someone, the greater the risk of effective direct transmission. For people just passing each other in a second or two the risk of infection remains low. For those in close proximity the risk of infection increases the longer they remain close together.

However, someone that is infective, yet not close to anyone else, will still be expiring droplets containing shed viral particles, and some of those will be settling on surfaces all around that person. If they stay in one place for several breaths, there's a pretty good chance that surfaces close to them will become contaminated. The risk then is multiplied, both because those surfaces may remain infective for many hours after the person has moved away and, because, in some environments, many people may come into contact with those surfaces, there is a multiplication factor involved, such that one infected person has the potential to infect a much greater number of people via indirect transmission than they did by direct transmission.

Masks definitely do reduce the risk a great deal, but primarily because they significantly reduce the volume of expired droplets from infective people. They do provide a small degree of protection from infection, but the major benefit is the reduction is expired droplets. This reduces both the direct and indirect infection risk very significantly, but to be effective, given that we know that viruses like this can be spread by asymptomatic carriers, pretty much everyone needs to wear masks. Given that mandating the wearing of masks seems an easy way to control the spread of infection, together with good hand hygiene, I'm not at all sure why this isn't being more widely promoted.
VP959 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 11:22
  #8166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 422
Good article on the aerosol vs droplet issue here...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/h...-airborne.html
stagger is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 12:51
  #8167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 68
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by stagger View Post
Good article on the aerosol vs droplet issue here...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/h...-airborne.html
Pretty much what I was questioning.

I certainly have no evidence to present.
But this whole sage has been dominated by "known characteristics" being proven inaccurate.
At the very least this seems to be a real possibility and I can not understand why it is so casually dismissed all based on questionable current knowledge.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 13:34
  #8168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
The aerosol vs droplet argument is one and the same thing. All aerosols are droplets, so choosing an arbitrary distinction between the two isn't really useful. Droplet size determines a few things, like:

1. How quickly droplets evaporate, as evaporation time is proportional to the surface area vs volume ratio, as well as temperature and humidity.

2. How rapidly droplets fall downwards on to surfaces, as droplet mass vs cross sectional area determines their resistance to falling through air.

3. How far droplets will travel when expelled at a given velocity, as droplet mass determines momentum. The greater the mass for a given velocity of expulsion, the greater the distance the droplet may travel. The initial velocity will be highly variable, from very low speeds associated with breathing, quite variable velocities when talking (for example, a "P" sound may give velocities that are an order of magnitude higher than an "O" sound) to much higher expulsion velocities when shouting, coughing or sneezing.

The second point is key with regard to how quickly droplets fall, and whether typical natural air movements may prevent them falling, as a consequence of the drag of the droplet exceeding the downwards force exerted by its mass and gravity for a given air velocity. Small droplets will clearly have a lower mass in proportion to their cross sectional area, so will tend to fall more slowly and be moved more readily by air movement. However, smaller droplets will also tend to evaporate more rapidly, although what impact this has on the viability of viral particles I don't know.

There are several variables here, there is not a sharply defined cut-off point in droplet size that causes any change in behaviour. Even very large droplets can be prevented from falling if the air velocity is high enough, hence the formation of large hail stones, caused by droplets being moved upwards in powerful convection currents in the atmosphere.

Both droplet velocity and air velocity are clearly more important than mass, due to the fact that drag is proportional to the square of velocity. Slow down either and the distance that droplets can travel will be reduced a great deal.

The key point is that pretty much all the most infective viral particles shed by any individual will be expired, although there may be a tiny risk from viral particles in faecal matter (this doesn't seem to be a significant, from what I've been able to find out so far).
VP959 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 13:46
  #8169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 1,332
Given that mandating the wearing of masks seems an easy way to control the spread of infection, together with good hand hygiene, I'm not at all sure why this isn't being more widely promoted.
And we may possibly only need to do it for one month.

I would take it further to the next level and incorporate a mouth muffler in the design - the silence would be golden.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 16:45
  #8170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 128
VP959:
Given that mandating the wearing of masks seems an easy way to control the spread of infection, together with good hand hygiene, I'm not at all sure why this isn't being more widely promoted.
We have been reassured ad nauseam that our leaders defer to 'the science'; we now know that this includes behavioural science. So is there a degree of hesitancy in issuing a firm directive on mask use because it is thought compliance would be time-limited?

Are there concerns re. mask supply, based on firm data?

Given that Boris has expressed in resounding, warlike terms that we shall achieve victory over SARS-CoV-2, would a masks directive be perceived as akin to a u-turn?

It could be that our leaders, and perhaps many of us, still expect a return to how life was before the pandemic. A population wearing masks does not fit that image.

I would offer that our 'new normal' will most likely not be in line with the preferences of populists Johnson, Trump et al. Or, to be fair, the preferences of most of the public.

A realistic approach would be to look towards achieving an interim new normal, before the ultimate final new normal! There is much ground to cover, and not only in relation to developing a cure or a vaccine.
John Marsh is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 16:56
  #8171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
I'm pretty sure that, back when this first started, there was a serious concern over mask supplies, and worry that if people started buying up masks for personal use then that may well mean shortages in hospitals. Since then, it seems that the manufacture and supply of masks has increased markedly, to the point where masks seem to be readily available pretty much everywhere.

I do wonder if the government are just reluctant to mandate wearing masks now, purely because they would then face criticism for not having mandated them earlier.

I don't see a problem with more people wearing masks, in fact personally I'd feel reassured if more people wore them, especially in places like shops and other indoor public spaces. Scotland have mandated that masks need to be worn in shops, and I can't see why the same shouldn't apply across the whole of the UK.
VP959 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 18:18
  #8172 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,594
I do wonder if the government are just reluctant to mandate wearing masks now, purely because they would then face criticism for not having mandated them earlier.
From what I have seen and read the CMO and CSO don’t believe that there is any great effectiveness in masks, both because of the way that people wear them and they way they continuously touch them.

More importantly, they believe the behavioural scientists who are telling them that people who do wear them then relax so much that they ignore the 1m+ and 2m limits and all other orecautions, such that the end result is worse than not wearing a mask in the first place.
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 18:19
  #8173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
The aerosol vs droplet argument is one and the same thing. All aerosols are droplets, so choosing an arbitrary distinction between the two isn't really useful.
Yes - there's a continuum - but the distinction between particles which fall to the ground quite rapidly over a distance of perhaps 1-2 metres - and others that are small enough to stay suspended in the air (indoors) for perhaps many hours - is important. Aerosolized particles don't just travel further then drop - they can remain suspended and circulate in the air for quite some time.

The distinction is discussed at length in this article...

Transmission of COVID-19 virus by droplets and aerosols: A critical review on the unresolved dichotomy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/

Respiratory particles may often be distinguished to be droplets or aerosols based on the particle size and specifically in terms of the aerodynamic diameter
There have been numerous disagreements on the average particle size of droplets and aerosols (Shiu et al., 2019). The World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) postulate that the particles of more than 5 μm as droplets, and those less than 5 μm as aerosols or droplet nuclei (Siegel et al., 2007; WHO, 2014). Conversely, there have been some other postulations, indicating that aerodynamic diameter of 20 μm or 10 μm or less should be reckoned to be aerosols, based on their ability to linger in the air for a prolonged period, and the reachability to the respirable fraction of the lung (alveolar region) (Gralton et al., 2011; Nicas et al., 2005; Tellier, 2009). Small aerosols are more susceptible to be inhaled deep into the lung, which causes infection in the alveolar tissues of the lower respiratory tract, while large droplets are trapped in the upper airways (Thomas, 2013).
Yes - it has not yet been proven unequivocally that aerosols are an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. But if they, are it is important to recognise that this mode of transmission is quite different from the type of droplet-based transmission that most public health advice refers to. The crucial difference is the ability for aersols to linger in the air - and reach the lower respiratory tract.



stagger is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 18:33
  #8174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
From what I have seen and read the CMO and CSO donít believe that there is any great effectiveness in masks, both because of the way that people wear them and they way they continuously touch them.

More importantly, they believe the behavioural scientists who are telling them that people who do wear them then relax so much that they ignore the 1m+ and 2m limits and all other orecautions, such that the end result is worse than not wearing a mask in the first place.
TBH, I suspect they are right about the behavioural aspects, as it's been known for decades that wearing masks increases the frequency of hand to face contact. However, I can't see why the government couldn't adopt a policy of mandating masks, together with some simple, oft-repeated, educational stuff about how to stay safe, avoid hand to face contact, etc. It's not rocket science, it just needs people to be aware of the risks and how their behaviour needs to adapt.
VP959 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 18:50
  #8175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
Originally Posted by stagger View Post
Yes - there's a continuum - but the distinction between particles which fall to the ground quite rapidly over a distance of perhaps 1-2 metres - and others that are small enough to stay suspended in the air (indoors) for perhaps many hours - is important. Aerosolized particles don't just travel further then drop - they can remain suspended and circulate in the air for quite some time.

The distinction is discussed at length in this article...

Transmission of COVID-19 virus by droplets and aerosols: A critical review on the unresolved dichotomy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/





Yes - it has not yet been proven unequivocally that aerosols are an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. But if they, are it is important to recognise that this mode of transmission is quite different from the type of droplet-based transmission that most public health advice refers to. The crucial difference is the ability for aersols to linger in the air - and reach the lower respiratory tract.

The problem is the common one of people working in silos, I think. Leaving local air velocity out of the debate about droplet size and behaviour is a seemingly massive omission, given that droplet drag, or lift, increases in proportion to the square of the local airspeed. This clearly has a more significant impact on whether droplets tend to float around or fall than droplet size. There's a pretty wide range of local air velocities likely to be encountered in places like shops, for example, with freezer and chiller cabinets both blowing exhaust air out and promoting areas of more vigorous convection, from increased local temperature differentials.

I remain unconvinced that creating an artificial division between the anticipated behaviour of one size of droplet, versus that of another, is of much practical use in assessing risk. I strongly suspect that measurements made under lab conditions may well be significantly different to the real world behaviour of droplets, given both the wide variability in droplet size and the wide variation in local air velocities that will prevail, not to mention the many variables introduced by the physical attributes and behaviour of the people shedding infective droplets. Even collecting and measuring droplets, especially very small ones around 5Ķ or so, is very challenging. At my former place of employment they perfected a way of using spider silk, wound around a frame, as viral droplet detectors, but it was a very labour intensive process creating these detectors. AFAIK, they are still the best way to do this task, though.

There's also the point that knowing exactly how droplets form, are expired and how they behave in air under a wide range of conditions may not be of much practical use in terms of defining infection control measures. In all probability, just adopting mask wearing and regular hand and surface disinfection would get the risk of infection down to a low enough level. The great thing about relatively simple measures like this is that they become more effective at reducing the infection risk as the number of infective people in the population reduces, with the beneficial side effect that many other infectious diseases would also be significantly reduced, so giving another significant benefit.
VP959 is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 19:46
  #8176 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,594
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/healt...ntl/index.html

Spain's coronavirus antibodies study adds evidence against herd immunity

Madrid (CNN)Spain's large-scale study on the coronavirus indicates just 5% of its population has developed antibodies, strengthening evidence that a so-called herd immunity to Covid-19 is "unachievable," the medical journal the Lancet reported on Monday......
ORAC is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 20:57
  #8177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,303
Could it be that the millions of words so far issued about the C19 outbreak are issued on a mistaken basis? It would seem, from a radio programme report tonight, that an examination of the runes, or, more particularly, last year's faeces, has shown evidence of traces of the virus in Spanish and Brazilian sewers at the beginning of last year! Given the vast amount of conflicting opinion, surmise (founded and unfounded) and just endless hypotheses, should we be directing our attention elsewhere? Just asking!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 22:51
  #8178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 207
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
Could it be that the millions of words so far issued about the C19 outbreak are issued on a mistaken basis? It would seem, from a radio programme report tonight, that an examination of the runes, or, more particularly, last year's faeces, has shown evidence of traces of the virus in Spanish and Brazilian sewers at the beginning of last year! Given the vast amount of conflicting opinion, surmise (founded and unfounded) and just endless hypotheses, should we be directing our attention elsewhere? Just asking!
As a corollary to this, this afternoon I had an interesting conversation with a medical doctor. He told me of seven patients having a history of mostly pulmonary ailments, one of whom had not fully recovered from pneumonia suffered last year and subsequently had contracted lung cancer, who had died from, according to the death certificates, "Covid19". In every case, the virus was an attendant factor but never causal, yet, I was told, the attending doctors had been "encouraged" to cite Covid19 as the cause of death since the enhanced figures evidently suited the government's purpose and removed the need for the state having to pay autopsy expenses. This was from a medical practitioner intimately engaged with the consequences of the pandemic, so I'm inclined to think the tale might be less than apocryphal.

Clearly, the more deaths that can be attributed to Covid19, the less heat the NHS has to take in respect of its manifest shortcomings in respect of "normal" conditions, thus delaying further the very urgent need for a rigorous shake-up of this failing institution. No amount of the banging of pots and pans will alter that fact. In any event, the story adds to the amount of evidence suggesting that we are being fed manipulated data and from which we should not draw serious conclusions.
Gipsy Queen is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2020, 22:52
  #8179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cambridge UK
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
Could it be that the millions of words so far issued about the C19 outbreak are issued on a mistaken basis? It would seem, from a radio programme report tonight, that an examination of the runes, or, more particularly, last year's faeces, has shown evidence of traces of the virus in Spanish and Brazilian sewers at the beginning of last year! Given the vast amount of conflicting opinion, surmise (founded and unfounded) and just endless hypotheses, should we be directing our attention elsewhere? Just asking!
Are you sure about that? A quick google is giving me:
An analysis released on Thursday said samples taken in Milan and Turin on Dec. 18 showed the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus. https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUKKBN23Q1J9

This is certainly earlier than the first reported cases in China, but not that much earlier.

PS More details and discussion of the implications in:
Virus already in Italy by December, sewers show https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-...-december.html

Last edited by Peter H; 6th Jul 2020 at 22:58. Reason: added PS
Peter H is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2020, 06:11
  #8180 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,594
Peter_H,

There was a report in a pre-print of a paper stating that that a sample had shown a faint presence of the virus from earlier in the year (March). But this would seem to have been a false positive not substantiated by any other test. Which is why the paper never appeared and the story died out.

https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2...celona-sewers/

Last edited by ORAC; 7th Jul 2020 at 08:49.
ORAC is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.