4 ms·

>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-

by 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.
    - SkyPuncher 6y ago
      > If you're hospitalized with cold/flu, your care team will observe droplet precautions, not aerosol ones. From my understanding, part of this is because most hospitals don't have aerosol specific precautions. Pre-COVID, anything requiring more than droplet precautions was simply handled with full-airborne precautions (negative pressure room, PAPR, etc). Ideally, we'd have the airborne-precaution PPE for all COVID care but that's extremely expensive and leadership (hospital and gov't) have become aware that healthcare workers will still show up to work even without proper protection.
      - R0b0t1 6y ago
        This is my point but people keep downvoting it. "That's expensive, so that can't be true."
    - R0b0t1 6y ago
      From WHO: >The physics of exhaled air and flow physics have generated hypotheses about possible mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through aerosols.(13-16) These theories suggest that 1) a number of respiratory droplets generate microscopic aerosols (<5 µm) by evaporating, and 2) normal breathing and talking results in exhaled aerosols. Thus, a susceptible person could inhale aerosols, and could become infected if the aerosols contain the virus in sufficient quantity to cause infection within the recipient. However, the proportion of exhaled droplet nuclei or of respiratory droplets that evaporate to generate aerosols, and the infectious dose of viable SARS-CoV-2 required to cause infection in another person are not known, but it has been studied for other respiratory viruses.(17) What the WHO and some doctors are doing is going: "despite the fact that it seems like it can spread via aerosols and that seems fairly likely, we want hard proof and are willing to risk our lives on that basis." So, lol.
sdinsn 6y ago
> Aerosol transmission is the main vector. Yeah. And that's not 'airborne'.
SkyPuncher 6y ago
> Aerosol transmission is the main vector. By strict definition, aerosol is not airborne. The behaviors converge, but there is a technical difference. It's particularly important when it comes to designing effective filtering material and sanitization processes.
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  Err.. what? Very fine particles are also included in aerosols. The definition I'm aware of is mostly based around whether there is an appreciable settling time.

by R0b0t1 6y ago

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.
  - SkyPuncher 6y ago
    > If you're hospitalized with cold/flu, your care team will observe droplet precautions, not aerosol ones. From my understanding, part of this is because most hospitals don't have aerosol specific precautions. Pre-COVID, anything requiring more than droplet precautions was simply handled with full-airborne precautions (negative pressure room, PAPR, etc). Ideally, we'd have the airborne-precaution PPE for all COVID care but that's extremely expensive and leadership (hospital and gov't) have become aware that healthcare workers will still show up to work even without proper protection.
    - R0b0t1 6y ago
      This is my point but people keep downvoting it. "That's expensive, so that can't be true."
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    From WHO: >The physics of exhaled air and flow physics have generated hypotheses about possible mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through aerosols.(13-16) These theories suggest that 1) a number of respiratory droplets generate microscopic aerosols (<5 µm) by evaporating, and 2) normal breathing and talking results in exhaled aerosols. Thus, a susceptible person could inhale aerosols, and could become infected if the aerosols contain the virus in sufficient quantity to cause infection within the recipient. However, the proportion of exhaled droplet nuclei or of respiratory droplets that evaporate to generate aerosols, and the infectious dose of viable SARS-CoV-2 required to cause infection in another person are not known, but it has been studied for other respiratory viruses.(17) What the WHO and some doctors are doing is going: "despite the fact that it seems like it can spread via aerosols and that seems fairly likely, we want hard proof and are willing to risk our lives on that basis." So, lol.

sdinsn 6y ago

> Aerosol transmission is the main vector. Yeah. And that's not 'airborne'.

SkyPuncher 6y ago

> Aerosol transmission is the main vector. By strict definition, aerosol is not airborne. The behaviors converge, but there is a technical difference. It's particularly important when it comes to designing effective filtering material and sanitization processes.

R0b0t1 6y ago
Err.. what? Very fine particles are also included in aerosols. The definition I'm aware of is mostly based around whether there is an appreciable settling time.