3 ms·
Unfortunately I never saw the papers on this and I'm looking for them now, so take this bullet with a grain of salt. Two lines of research were relayed to me ve
by mikedilger 7y ago
Unfortunately I never saw the papers on this and I'm looking for them now, so take this bullet with a grain of salt. Two lines of research were relayed to me verbally.
1. In one experiment in a hospital room detected virus on surfaces but not in the air, but it did so many (I vaguely recall it was 4) hours after the patient was in the room. I think I heard this in answer to a press question during a New Zealand official 1pm broadcast on COVID-19. They didn't categorically claim it can't be atomized, but suggested strongly that this wasn't expected to be a significant vector for transmission.
2. The other source was a paper someone linked to on Twitter. And I neglected to download it. But someone physically atomized material with the virus and then after some time period was able to detect the virus still atomized in the air. This proved it was possible to remain atomized, but not that sick people actually atomize the virus well. Again, perhaps not a significant mode of transmission.
I'll keep looking. I'll temporarily retract that bullet point.
- rriepe 7y agoI believe the incident you're referring to was actually an apartment building outbreak, not a study. As an event it seemed to confirm the airborne/atomized/fecal-oral spread early on. Somebody got someone in another part of their building sick.
- EdwardDiego 7y agoCheers, yeah my reading on it tended to the conclusion that it could aerosolise, but that was a limited vector compared to droplets (but limited doesn't mean none).