5 ms·

> shedding more virus than is normal, but we still don’t know what would trigger this, let alone how to identify it through practical means. What's the technic

by tlb 6y ago

> shedding more virus than is normal, but we still don’t know what would trigger this, let alone how to identify it through practical means. What's the technical path to a airborne virus monitor? Something that sucks in air and detects viruses, and sounds an alarm like a smoke or carbon monoxide detector. It doesn't have to be very specific to COVID-19, so you probably don't need RNA sequencing. Any significant number of viruses (except possibly a few harmless ones on an allow-list) should be reason to evacuate a building.

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
Wouldn't the system somehow need to detect the virus at incredibly low PPM, and rely on the virus being in that section of the room? Especially with coronavirus, which travels via water droplets and falls to the ground fairly quickly, you could have a spreader walk through the room without it hitting the device. I'd also expect that the list of viruses that are worth evacuation over is much much shorter than the sum of all viruses in the air at one time. (Looked it up, looks like 219 viruses that can even just infect us[1] vs hundreds of millions [2]) [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/ [2] https://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-many-viruses-on-earth/ https://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-many-viruses-on-earth...
- RobertoG 6y ago
  Some kind of breathalyzer then?
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    In that case we're basically just down to more efficient and faster reading swabbing. It's also questionable if getting everyone to put their lips on and then breathe into the same tube is a good virus containment strategy.
- foobarian 6y ago
  False positives would really mess this up. Can you imagine all the Ebola office fire drills?
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    It'd be absolutely terrifying - a totally invisible threat setting off an alarm that's telling you there's a danger in your immediate vicinity. And then what? The office building fire drill, where hundreds of people all trudge down 20 stories together in the claustrophobic confines of a concrete stairwell along with the unconsciously contagious? Or lock down the room until someone can decontaminate the whole thing?
gmuslera 6y ago
I'm not sure about air, but at least for the ocean each drop of water holds like 10m virus (or at least estimation like that was done some time ago). If air (at least up to some height) carries virus in a similar way you should have a lot of usually harmless ones and a few ones in a deny-list)
wizardforhire 6y ago
> What's the technical path to a airborne virus monitor? Idk specifics but I remember reading about projects like these [1] 18 years ago and haven’t seen much development since. I’m sure one of us has more information than I. Maybe they’ve gotten past the perpetual 20 years in the future problem? Regardless, a silicon based particle detector based on the nose is the most promising direction I think to developing something functional. [1]https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/ne1000000082223/ https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/ne10000000...
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I'm not sure the underlying premise is true. There are all the experiments about how your hands are constantly covered in germs unless you literally just washed them; I don't know why the same wouldn't be true of the air.

by tlb 6y ago

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

Wouldn't the system somehow need to detect the virus at incredibly low PPM, and rely on the virus being in that section of the room? Especially with coronavirus, which travels via water droplets and falls to the ground fairly quickly, you could have a spreader walk through the room without it hitting the device. I'd also expect that the list of viruses that are worth evacuation over is much much shorter than the sum of all viruses in the air at one time. (Looked it up, looks like 219 viruses that can even just infect us[1] vs hundreds of millions [2]) [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427559/ [2] https://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-many-viruses-on-earth/ https://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-many-viruses-on-earth...

RobertoG 6y ago
Some kind of breathalyzer then?
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  In that case we're basically just down to more efficient and faster reading swabbing. It's also questionable if getting everyone to put their lips on and then breathe into the same tube is a good virus containment strategy.
foobarian 6y ago
False positives would really mess this up. Can you imagine all the Ebola office fire drills?
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  It'd be absolutely terrifying - a totally invisible threat setting off an alarm that's telling you there's a danger in your immediate vicinity. And then what? The office building fire drill, where hundreds of people all trudge down 20 stories together in the claustrophobic confines of a concrete stairwell along with the unconsciously contagious? Or lock down the room until someone can decontaminate the whole thing?

gmuslera 6y ago

I'm not sure about air, but at least for the ocean each drop of water holds like 10m virus (or at least estimation like that was done some time ago). If air (at least up to some height) carries virus in a similar way you should have a lot of usually harmless ones and a few ones in a deny-list)

wizardforhire 6y ago

> What's the technical path to a airborne virus monitor? Idk specifics but I remember reading about projects like these [1] 18 years ago and haven’t seen much development since. I’m sure one of us has more information than I. Maybe they’ve gotten past the perpetual 20 years in the future problem? Regardless, a silicon based particle detector based on the nose is the most promising direction I think to developing something functional. [1]https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/ne1000000082223/ https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/ne10000000...

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I'm not sure the underlying premise is true. There are all the experiments about how your hands are constantly covered in germs unless you literally just washed them; I don't know why the same wouldn't be true of the air.