‘A Smoking Gun’: Infectious Coronavirus Retrieved From Hospital Air

Search
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
"Airborne virus plays a significant role in community transmission, many experts believe. A new study fills in the missing piece: Floating virus can infect cells.

Skeptics of the notion that the coronavirus spreads through the air — including many expert advisers to the World Health Organization — have held out for one missing piece of evidence: proof that floating respiratory droplets called aerosols contain live virus, and not just fragments of genetic material.
Now a team of virologists and aerosol scientists has produced exactly that: confirmation of infectious virus in the air.


“This is what people have been clamoring for,” said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne spread of viruses who was not involved in the work. “It’s unambiguous evidence that there is infectious virus in aerosols.”
A research team at the University of Florida succeeded in isolating live virus from aerosols collected at a distance of seven to 16 feet from patients hospitalized with Covid-19 — farther than the six feet recommended in social distancing guidelines.


The findings, posted online last week, have not yet been vetted by peer review, but have already caused something of a stir among scientists. “If this isn’t a smoking gun, then I don’t know what is,” Dr. Marr tweeted last week.
But some experts said it still was not clear that the amount of virus recovered was sufficient to cause infection.


The research was exacting. Aerosols are minute by definition, measuring only up to five micrometers across; evaporation can make them even smaller. Attempts to capture these delicate droplets usually damage the virus they contain.
“It’s very hard to sample biological material from the air and have it be viable,” said Shelly Miller, an environmental engineer at the University of Colorado Boulder who studies air quality and airborne diseases.
“We have to be clever about sampling biological material so that it is more similar to how you might inhale it.”

...This time, the team collected air samples from a room in a ward dedicated to Covid-19 patients at the University of Florida Health Shands Hospital. Neither patient in the room was subject to medical procedures known to generate aerosols, which the W.H.O. and others have contended are the primary source of airborne virus in a hospital setting.

...The genome sequence of the isolated virus was identical to that from a swab of a newly admitted symptomatic patient in the room.

...“I’m just not sure that these numbers are high enough to cause an infection in somebody,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.


“The only conclusion I can take from this paper is you can culture viable virus out of the air,” she said. “But that’s not a small thing.”
Several experts noted that the distance at which the team found virus is much farther than the six feet recommended for physical distancing.
“We know that indoors, those distance rules don’t matter anymore,” Dr. Schofield said. It takes about five minutes for small aerosols to traverse the room even in still air, she added.
The six-foot minimum is “misleading, because people think they are protected indoors and they’re really not,” she said.
That recommendation was based on the notion that “large ballistic cannonball-type droplets” were the only vehicles for the virus, Dr. Marr said. The more distance people can maintain, the better, she added.


The findings should also push people to heed precautions for airborne transmission like improved ventilation, said Seema Lakdawala, a respiratory virus expert at the University of Pittsburgh.
“We all know that this virus can transmit by all these modes, but we’re only focusing on a small subset,” Dr. Lakdawala said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aerosols-indoors.html


:smoking:




 

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
333
Tokens
Whats the point of you posting this article? What do you expect a person to gain from reading it?
 

New member
Joined
May 24, 2018
Messages
1,749
Tokens
Well, let's see if the mods follow through with giving people bans for spamming the forum with Covid19 threads. This is as clear a violation as it gets.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
Well, let's see if the mods follow through with giving people bans for spamming the forum with Covid19 threads. This is as clear a violation as it gets.

Nonsense. There's no rule against, let alone a ban for, posting a single C-19 thread in the Offshore forum.

Compare this thread created by The Computer Group yesterday which hasn't even been moved:

http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=1163619

In fact the other day you created not one, but three, new C-19 threads here.
 

EV Whore
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
19,916
Tokens
This one sentence says it all for multiple reasons.

“This is what people have been clamoring for,” said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne spread of viruses who was not involved in the work.
 

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
333
Tokens
Mr Meano, lol,

That should be self evident if you had read any of it & had a qualifyingly high enough IQ.



If you had any common sense, youd see that the article itself states that experts contradict the study's "result", and cant confirm what the study was trying to prove.

Just answer the question. What was the purpose of you posting this article? If I started a thread, about any topic, I could answer with certainty why I posted what I did. Can you? Why did you feel the need to post this?
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
If you had any common sense, youd see that the article itself states that experts contradict the study's "result", and cant confirm what the study was trying to prove.


Oh, really? Please explain in detail what you are talking about. And back it up with quotes from the article.

Just answer the question. What was the purpose of you posting this article? If I started a thread, about any topic, I could answer with certainty why I posted what I did. Can you? Why did you feel the need to post this?

Why did you feel the need to post the comment quoted above? What was the purpose of posting that comment?
 

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2011
Messages
102,050
Tokens
If you had any common sense, youd see that the article itself states that experts contradict the study's "result", and cant confirm what the study was trying to prove.

Just answer the question. What was the purpose of you posting this article? If I started a thread, about any topic, I could answer with certainty why I posted what I did. Can you? Why did you feel the need to post this?
lol. He cant answer any of it , just a mental troll
 

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
333
Tokens
But some experts said it still was not clear that the amount of virus recovered was sufficient to cause infection.



...“I’m just not sure that these numbers are high enough to cause an infection in somebody


There's youre quotes, that state that the amount of virus recovered isnt enough to cause an infection.

research team at the University of Florida succeeded in isolating live virus from aerosols collected at a distance of seven to 16 feet from patients hospitalized with Covid-19 — farther than the six feet recommended in social distancing guidelines.

Thats what the study was trying to prove, and it hasnt been. The article is trying to make dog shit look like diamonds.


Back to the original question, whats the point of you posting this?
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
But some experts said it still was not clear that the amount of virus recovered was sufficient to cause infection.



...“I’m just not sure that these numbers are high enough to cause an infection in somebody


There's youre quotes, that state that the amount of virus recovered isnt enough to cause an infection.

Those quotes don't say what you say they say.

Those quotes don't "state that the amount of virus recovered isnt enough to cause an infection."

research team at the University of Florida succeeded in isolating live virus from aerosols collected at a distance of seven to 16 feet from patients hospitalized with Covid-19 — farther than the six feet recommended in social distancing guidelines.

Thats what the study was trying to prove, and it hasnt been. The article is trying to make dog shit look like diamonds.

Actually the study did show exactly that.

Also, BTW, from the same article:

"Doctors in Johannesburg demonstrated how to place a device called an intubox over a patient, to help curb the spread of viral droplets during intubation."Credit...

FYI further to that:

https://www.barrons.com/news/south-...o-prevent-covid-19-icu-infections-01587070805
 

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
333
Tokens
Thanks for avoiding my original question yet again. You really are to stupid to argue with you lack the comprehensive skills that enable normal people to analyze a situation so I give up trying. Youre a fucking idiot
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
<header class="lx-stream-post__header gs-o-media gs-u-mb-alt" data-reactid=".egnlheg5i6.2.0.0.1.0.$lx-commentary.$lx-commentary.2.0.1.1.1:$post-5f49111bcd93e006716a76aa.0.1" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(30, 30, 30); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; margin-bottom: 12px !important;">[h=3]US deaths could exceed 200,000 by mid-September[/h]
</header>The coronavirus death toll in the US could rise above 200,000 by the middle of September, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has predicted.

The CDC on Thursday released its forecast<svg viewBox="0 0 32 32">
</path></svg>
for national deaths related to Covid-19 for the next four weeks.</p>An estimated 4,000 to 8,300 new deaths are expected to be recorded during the week ending 19 September, the CDC said.
The CDC’s worst-case scenario would see 207,000 deaths in total reported by that date.

At least 180,000 people have died with Covid-19 so far in the US, the highest number in the world, according to a tally by Johns Hopkins University<svg viewBox="0 0 32 32">
</path></svg>
.</p>The US of course has a large population. At 55.27, the US’s death rate per 100,000 people is the 11th highest in the world, the university’s analysis shows.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-53943522



 

Member Emeritus
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
7,634
Tokens
That you can find virus in the room of a sick person is hardly earth shattering news. In fact I'd be surprised if you didn't.

What most people don't realize, is that in most people, who are not immuno-compromised, viral infections are a numbers game. Kind of like exposure to poison. Six feet is an admittedly arbitrary distance, felt to be far enough to let most droplets, to fall to the ground. And far enough for aerosolized virus to be dilute enough so as to not pose a threat. Would 20 feet be better....sure. Would 3 feet be worse....sure. But most of what the CDC does is offer practical guidelines.

What the article failed to say.....was that the study conducted in the room with the sick person yielded only 74 tiny particles. A virologist at Columbia, Angela Rasmussen stated, its hard to interpret whether "that tiny number might actually produce disease in an other wise healthy person."

I did T cell research in 1977, 43 years ago, when they were just starting to identify and strategize against HIV. They speak of "the art of medicine," because it has an infinite number of shades of gray, and very few smoking guns.....despite what failing newspapers and the checkout line national enquirer type scandal sheets proclaim.

I haven't left my apartment in 6 months. I have asthma, I'm in my 70's and I'm adopting a betting strategy to survival. With my health/age isolation is the best bet. I encourage each of you to do the same. Not to isolate. But to take stock of your risk, then chart a course that will see you safely until Nov-Jan when you'll be able to get a vaccine.

STAY SAFE.......STAY WELL, AND BOL WITH ALL OF YOUR BETS.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
24,349
Tokens
"COVID-19 Is Transmitted Through Aerosols. We Have Enough Evidence, Now It Is Time to Act"
...months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the coronavirus is still spreading uncontrolled through the U.S. Public health authorities including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) tell us to remain six feet apart, wash our hands, disinfect frequently touched surfaces, and wear masks. But compliance with these measures—especially masks—is mixed, and daily we hear of cases where people do not know how they were infected. We hear about superspreading events, where one person infects many, happening in crowded bars and family gatherings, but not at outdoor demonstrations. Beaches in cities like Chicago are closed, but gyms and indoor dining at restaurants have reopened. It is no wonder the public is confused.

It is critical to have a clear physical description of the ways in which COVID-19 is transmitted, so that individuals and institutions are able to visualize it and will understand how to protect themselves. Contrary to public health messaging, I, together with many other scientists, believe that a substantial share of COVID-19 cases are the result of transmission through aerosols. The evidence in favor of aerosols is stronger than that for any other pathway, and officials need to be more aggressive in expressing this reality if we want to get the pandemic under control.

There are three possible ways the virus is transmitted, of which two have been emphasized by the WHO and the CDC. The first is through “fomites,” objects that are contaminated with the virus (which could include someone else’s skin). Early in the pandemic, concern over fomite transmission drove some people to bleach groceries and packages. The CDC now says fomites are a possible means of transmission, but likely not one that is major. For example, an intensive handwashing program in the UK led to only a 16% reduction in transmission. Significantly, other viruses that, like SARS-CoV-2 (the one that causes COVID-19), have a lipid envelope, do not survive long on human hands. That means someone would need to touch their eyes, nostrils, or mouth a short time after touching a contaminated surface in order to contract the novel coronavirus.


The second possibility for how COVID-19 spreads is through droplets, small bits of saliva or respiratory fluid that infected individuals expel when they cough, sneeze, or talk. Droplets—which the WHO and CDC maintain is the primary means of transmission of COVID-19—are propelled through the air, but fall to the ground after traveling 3-6 feet. However, published research, which has been replicated, shows that droplets are only important when coughing and sneezing. But when it comes to talking in close proximity, which appears to play a major role in COVID-19 transmission, droplets are less important than the third potential pathway: aerosols. Many diseases, including COVID-19, infect most effectively at close proximity. Since droplets are visible and fall to the ground between 3-6 feet, we can readily see and understand this route of infection. In fact, it was thought for decades that tuberculosis was transmitted by droplets and fomites, based on ease of infection at close proximity, but research eventually proved that tuberculosis can only be transmitted through aerosols. I believe that we have been making a similar mistake for COVID-19.

“Aerosol” (sometimes referred to as “airborne”) transmission is similar to droplet transmission, except that the bits of fluid are so small that they can linger in the air for minutes to hours. To understand the scale of aerosols, the diameter of a human hair is about 80 microns, and aerosols smaller than about 50 microns can float in the air long enough to be inhaled. SARS-CoV-2 is only 0.1 microns in diameter, so there is room for plenty of viruses in aerosols.



Fomites and droplets have dominated our everyday understanding of COVID-19 transmission. While the WHO and CDC both state that aerosols could lead to transmission under highly specific situations, both organizations maintain that they are less important. I believe this is a significant mistake and on July 6 I, along with 239 scientists, appealed to the WHO to reevaluate their stance. WHO updated its position in response, but the agency’s language continues to express skepticism of the importance of this pathway.

The unwillingness to acknowledge the likelihood that aerosols are a major means of COVID-19 transmission can be traced to the legacy of Dr. Charles Chapin, an American public health researcher. Trying to bury once and for all the theory of miasmas, ghostly clouds of disease, he argued in his seminal 1910 book The Sources and Modes of Infection that aerosol transmission was nearly impossible. “It will be a great relief to most persons to be freed from the specter of infected air, a specter that has pursued the race since the time of Hippocrates,” Chapin wrote. The impact of his book was fortuitous in a way: it came at a time when enough evidence about the transmission of different infectious diseases had accumulated since the discovery of germs by Pasteur in the 1860s, but before we had the technology to measure aerosols. Chapin’s notions became the paradigm of infectious disease transmission, which has dominated until now.

Given this deeply held disbelief of aerosol transmission, just a few diseases, including measles and chickenpox, have been accepted as being transmitted through aerosols—and only because these are so transmissible that the evidence could not be ignored by the medical community. Some less-contagious respiratory diseases, like influenza, were described as due to droplet and fomite transmission, even when they clearly had an aerosol component. That stance has, over the years, created an unfounded perception in health care that any disease that is transmitted through aerosols has to be extremely contagious. But 110 years later, the nuances and importance of aerosol transmission of respiratory diseases are finally becoming mainstream.


When it comes to COVID-19, the evidence overwhelmingly supports aerosol transmission, and there are no strong arguments against it. For example, contact tracing has found that much COVID-19 transmission occurs in close proximity, but that many people who share the same home with an infected person do not get the disease. To understand why, it is useful to use cigarette or vaping smoke (which is also an aerosol) as an analog. Imagine sharing a home with a smoker: if you stood close to the smoker while talking, you would inhale a great deal of smoke. Replace the smoke with virus-containing aerosols, which behave very similarly, and the impact is similar: the closer you are to someone releasing virus-carrying aerosols, the more likely you are to breathe in larger amounts of virus. We know from detailed, rigorous studies that when individuals talk in close proximity, aerosols dominate transmission and droplets are nearly negligible.

Read More: How to Make Homemade Face Masks More Effective—and How to Wear Them Right

If you are standing on the other side of the room, you would inhale significantly less smoke. But in a poorly ventilated room, the smoke will accumulate, and people in the room may end up inhaling a lot of smoke over time. Talking, and especially singing and shouting increase aerosol exhalation by factors of 10 and 50, respectively. Indeed, we are finding that outbreaks often occur when people gather in crowded, insufficiently ventilated indoor spaces, such as singing at karaoke parties, cheering at clubs, having conversations in bars, and exercising in gyms. Superspreading events, where one person infects many, occur almost exclusively in indoor locations and are driving the pandemic. These observations are easily explained by aerosols, and are very difficult or impossible to explain by droplets or fomites.

Furthermore, droplets move ballistically—they fly like a cannonball from someone’s mouth and then travel through the air until they either hit something (worst case someone else’s eyes, mouth or nostrils) or fall to the ground. Aerosols on the other hand, act like smoke: after being expelled, they don’t fall to the ground, but rather disperse throughout the air, getting diluted by air currents, and being inhaled by others present in the same space. Contact tracing shows that, when it comes to COVID-19, being outdoors is 20 times safer than being indoors, which argues that aerosol transmission is much more important than droplets; outdoors, there’s plenty of air in which aerosols can become diluted; not so indoors. In addition, researchers have demonstrated aerosol transmission of this virus in ferrets and hamsters.

The visual analogy of smoke can help guide our risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. One just has to imagine that others they encounter are all smoking, and the goal is to breathe as little smoke as possible. But COVID-19 is not very contagious under most situations, unlike, for example, measles: the CDC says that 15 minutes of close proximity to a COVID-19 infected person often leads to contagion, which provides an estimate of how much “exhaled smoke” one may need to inhale for infection. Inhaling a little whiff of “smoke” here and there is OK, but a lot of “smoke” for a sustained period of time and without a mask is risky. (To be clear, actual smoke does not increase the probability of infection.)


We should continue doing what has already been recommended: wash hands, keep six feet apart, and so on. But that is not enough. A new, consistent and logical set of recommendations must emerge to reduce aerosol transmission. I propose the following: Avoid Crowding, Indoors, low Ventilation, Close proximity, long Duration, Unmasked, Talking/singing/Yelling (“A CIViC DUTY”). These are the important factors in mathematical models of aerosol transmission, and can also be simply understood as factors that impact how much “smoke” we would inhale.

A CIViC DUTY first suggests that we should do as many activities as possible outdoors, as schools did to avoid the spread of tuberculosis a century ago, despite harsh winters. Given how much being outside reduces COVID-19 transmission risk, it is mind boggling that the U.S. National Guard is not busy setting up open canopy tents at every school around the country. That said, stepping outdoors is not a magical protection against contagion: a windy day in an open area while keeping our distance is very safe, but an unmasked close conversation with still air in a narrow passage between tall buildings is risky.

Second, masks are essential, even when we are able to maintain social distance. We should also pay attention to fitting masks snugly, as they are not just a parapet against ballistic droplets, but also a means to prevent “smoke” from leaking in through gaps. We should not remove masks to talk, nor allow someone who is not wearing a mask to talk to us, because we exhale aerosols 10 times as much when talking compared to breathing. Everyone should be careful to not stand behind someone with a poorly fitting mask, as the curvature of an ill-fitting mask can cause aerosols to travel behind the person wearing it.

It is important to think about ventilation and air cleaning. We take operable windows and HVAC systems for granted, rarely paying attention to how they work. Times are different now, and we need to learn how to best use these systems to decrease risk. We need to increase the amount of indoor air that is replaced by outdoor air, by opening windows or adjusting mechanical systems. We need better filters installed in many ventilation systems that recirculate some of the air. These interventions can get costly, so it is very important to think carefully and prioritize objectively—we can, for example, use affordable CO2 measurements to identify the most dangerous, underventilated frequently occupied public spaces, and prioritize them.

Read More: A New Study Suggests COVID-19 Reinfection Is Possible. Here’s What to Know

Portable HEPA air cleaners work well to remove virus-laden aerosols, but unfortunately they are costly. Makeshift fan-filter cleaners can be made for less than $50, have been shown to work in multiple tests including peer-reviewed papers, and have been used for years in China to reduce the impact of pollution in homes. They can be noisy and are not a long-term solution, but they may help us get through the next few months. Germicidal UV systems can help in some situations, but only if ventilation and filtering cannot do the job. We should also remember that air cleaning is not a silver bullet: if we simulate the Skagit choir outbreak with an added large amount of air cleaning, the infection rate only drops by half. Spending as much time as possible outdoors, wearing masks, and reducing density will remain critical no matter how well we ventilate and clean the air.


In a fast-moving viral pandemic, scientific understanding will inevitably change as research catches up to the speed at which the virus spreads. However, it seems clear that aerosols are more important when it comes to transmitting COVID-19 than we thought six months ago—and certainly more important than public health officials are currently making them out to be. The WHO and CDC, among others, must begin communicating the science suggesting aerosol spread of COVID-19—and the risk reduction strategies necessary as a result. If not, we hamper our ability to counter the growing health consequences and increasing death toll of COVID-19.

covid-19-new-york.jpg
[h=3]COVID-19 Is Transmitted Through Aerosols. We Have Enough Evidence, Now It Is Time to Act.[/h]Aerosols are more important when it comes to transmitting COVID-19 than we thought six months ago—and we need to act accordingly.
favicon.ico
time.com




 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,116,463
Messages
13,533,694
Members
100,369
Latest member
collectionsinpi
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com