4 ms·

> It was clear from the very beginning that transmission was airborne. To me the only thing that was clear was the definition of airborne is not standard. By

> It was clear from the very beginning that transmission was airborne. To me the only thing that was clear was the definition of airborne is not standard. By strict definition, COVID is not airborne since it seems to require a host material (e.g. water droplet). This is in contrast to measles which individual virus particles can survive without a host material. Practically speaking though, COVID seems to be able to survive well in such small droplets that it acts like an airborne disease. At a public health, COVID might as well be treated as airborne. Within acute care settings, this is a critical difference is being used as justification that a _properly_ fitted N95 and eye covering is sufficient to care for COVID patients. If COVID was truly airborne, all patient care should require airborne-level PPE (like PAPRs).

pwned1 6y ago
Just to be pedantic. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus, Covid is the disease. The same as HIV vs AIDS.
- SkyPuncher 6y ago
  I'm aware. Covid is half as long and everyone knows what I'm talking about. HIV/AIDS is a bit more important because the disease can lag the infection by a large period.
R0b0t1 6y ago
>By strict definition, COVID is not airborne since it seems to require a host material (e.g. water droplet). You are wrong. Read: 1. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmissi.... 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5_reference.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5_reference..... Aerosol transmission is the main vector. Consider posing your statement in the reverse: SARS-CoV-2 does not disperse in droplets, and/or is not infectious when not in a droplet. There is no reason to believe either of those things! It's totally reasonable to assume the virus could separate from a droplet and would remain infectious by itself for enough time to infect someone. This is common in other viruses, and seems to make sense from first principles. Why would virus particles not be able to form aerosols?
- hashtagjohnt 6y ago
  In the first article you posted it reads: > To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated; much more research is needed given the possible implications of such route of transmission. That seems to be in direct opposition to your statement, correct? Or am I missing something.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    Well, I forgot the WHO still does not think aerosol transmission is likely. But they do have a section on airborne spread that exceeds most people's expectations. The thing is -- why assume it can't form aerosols and that those aerosols aren't infectious? By demanding evidence for aerosol formation that is what they are stating. It makes no sense. Most viruses do form aerosols, and those aerosols do seem to be infectious.
- frenchy 6y ago
  So I read those, and at least according to the WHO document, it seems to be the case that while viral RNA is detectable in a non-aersolized state in the air, they haven't been able to find any cases of this causing infection (See section labelled "Airborne transmission").
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    The thing is -- why assume it can't form aerosols and that those aerosols aren't infectious? By demanding evidence for aerosol formation that is what they are stating. It makes no sense. Most viruses do form aerosols, and those aerosols do seem to be infectious. Are you really prepared to make the bet that they aren't infectious?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > Most viruses do form aerosols, and those aerosols do seem to be infectious. It's my understanding that most don't spread in this fashion. If you're hospitalized with cold/flu, your care team will observe droplet precautions, not aerosol ones. If you have measles, which spreads via aerosol, they'll be using substantially more gear. The aerosol transmission is also why measles is shockingly easy to spread versus most other diseases.

pwned1 6y ago

Just to be pedantic. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus, Covid is the disease. The same as HIV vs AIDS.

SkyPuncher 6y ago
I'm aware. Covid is half as long and everyone knows what I'm talking about. HIV/AIDS is a bit more important because the disease can lag the infection by a large period.

R0b0t1 6y ago

>By strict definition, COVID is not airborne since it seems to require a host material (e.g. water droplet). You are wrong. Read: 1. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmission-of-sars-cov-2-implications-for-infection-prevention-precautions https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/transmissi.... 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5_reference.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2342-5_reference..... Aerosol transmission is the main vector. Consider posing your statement in the reverse: SARS-CoV-2 does not disperse in droplets, and/or is not infectious when not in a droplet. There is no reason to believe either of those things! It's totally reasonable to assume the virus could separate from a droplet and would remain infectious by itself for enough time to infect someone. This is common in other viruses, and seems to make sense from first principles. Why would virus particles not be able to form aerosols?

hashtagjohnt 6y ago
In the first article you posted it reads: > To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated; much more research is needed given the possible implications of such route of transmission. That seems to be in direct opposition to your statement, correct? Or am I missing something.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  Well, I forgot the WHO still does not think aerosol transmission is likely. But they do have a section on airborne spread that exceeds most people's expectations. The thing is -- why assume it can't form aerosols and that those aerosols aren't infectious? By demanding evidence for aerosol formation that is what they are stating. It makes no sense. Most viruses do form aerosols, and those aerosols do seem to be infectious.
frenchy 6y ago
So I read those, and at least according to the WHO document, it seems to be the case that while viral RNA is detectable in a non-aersolized state in the air, they haven't been able to find any cases of this causing infection (See section labelled "Airborne transmission").
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  The thing is -- why assume it can't form aerosols and that those aerosols aren't infectious? By demanding evidence for aerosol formation that is what they are stating. It makes no sense. Most viruses do form aerosols, and those aerosols do seem to be infectious. Are you really prepared to make the bet that they aren't infectious?
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > Most viruses do form aerosols, and those aerosols do seem to be infectious. It's my understanding that most don't spread in this fashion. If you're hospitalized with cold/flu, your care team will observe droplet precautions, not aerosol ones. If you have measles, which spreads via aerosol, they'll be using substantially more gear. The aerosol transmission is also why measles is shockingly easy to spread versus most other diseases.