6 ms·

Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2

yosito 5y ago
I'm all in favor of studying the evidence of how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted. But at this point, debating whether it's airborne or not is a bit like debating whether the sky is blue. Yes, there are exceptions, but the broad nature of how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted has been obvious, since at least March 2020, to anyone who has been paying attention. Anyone still in denial of this fact is out of touch with reality.
- thowaway97635 5y ago
  still hasnt been isolated
  - yosito 5y ago
    that statement is literal nonsense
    - thowaway97635 5y ago
      is it though?
- junon 5y ago
  I think there's a difference between "airborne" and "aerosol". Isn't that why there's still a debate?
  - yosito 5y ago
    AFAICT that's a semantic debate around the size and range of particles without universally agreed of definitions of the terms. Trying to categorize transmission into binary modes seems a little futile. Of course, studying and modelling the exact dynamics of particle transmission is useful, but the headline and linked study seemed to be related to a binary question of whether or not airborne transmission happens, which is a question that's been thoroughly answered for several months.
    - wk_end 5y ago
      It’s not a mere semantic debate - if I understand correctly (not a virologist or anything) the implications are huge. Droplets are ejected from the face and basically fall straight to the ground. This is what makes things like six feet “socially distancing” rules effective - you basically need to be in a direct, face-to-face interaction with someone to spread the virus. Airborne transmission in the technical sense means that the virus can float along in the air, potentially for hours in a poorly ventilated space: most social distancing NPIs become nearly meaningless. Staying outside or improving indoor ventilation become the big things that matter. Also, droplets are large and are stopped effectively even by the sort of cheap, relatively loose-fitting masks people are wearing. If airborne transmission is a major problem, that’s no longer really the case; we all need N95s to make much of an impact.
      - yosito 5y ago
        You're not wrong. But the point I'm making is that "droplet" vs "aerosol" is not binary. There is a wide range of particle sizes. There are particles that immediately fall to the ground, and there are particles that float around in the air for days, and there is everything in between. It's been shown for over a year that COVID can be transmitted in particles that float in the air for some time. Exactly how much time and in what conditions should be studied, but we're long past the question of whether it happens or not.
        klmadfejno 5y ago
        That's an obvious insight I hadn't considered before.
- reureu 5y ago
  I don't think it's been obvious at all, at least as evidenced by preventive measures people take. If it's airborne, then "social distancing" (especially at 6 feet), hand washing, and cloth face coverings are not sufficient to prevent transmission. If it's droplet transmitted, then those all work quite well. I still see hotels, airlines, restaurants, etc pushing prevention measures that don't account for airborne transmission. So, while many (including myself) may feel there is no substantial debate to be had here, I'm not sure that the community at large has caught up.
  - yosito 5y ago
    > I'm not sure that the community at large has caught up. Fair point. Where I live people seem obsessed with handwashing, but those same people are not afraid to go unmasked to a bar for hours.
jeffrallen 5y ago
Wait, why are we even discussing this? It's obviously airborne, and we obviously have to defeat it injustice visites, i.e. by vaccination. Sorry if I'm not being "scientific" enough here, but sometimes science is in position to common sense. This pandemic has stretched patience thin. Let's just finish this damn thing off. More shots in more arms, NOW!
- scrollaway 5y ago
  "It's obviously airborne" is what that article says, and it appears to be in response to this: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1 https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1
- DougMerritt 5y ago
  In infectious disease, "airborne" is defined to mean a certain maximum droplet size threshold, which I think is 100% misleading to non-specialists, but one can see why that might make sense to specialists. (I'm not an infectious disease specialist, so the above took me by surprise when I learned it.)
egberts1 5y ago
TL;DR Citing the original source by skipping the HN article: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1 https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1 Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions over airborne transmission. Me: in other words, we need more concrete detection method.
zed88 5y ago
Tbh...it all makes sense, given the speed of transmission and proves WHO useless again. I am wondering why WHO is getting it all wrong so far.

I'm all in favor of studying the evidence of how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted. But at this point, debating whether it's airborne or not is a bit like debating whether the sky is blue. Yes, there are exceptions, but the broad nature of how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted has been obvious, since at least March 2020, to anyone who has been paying attention. Anyone still in denial of this fact is out of touch with reality.

thowaway97635 5y ago
still hasnt been isolated
- yosito 5y ago
  that statement is literal nonsense
  - thowaway97635 5y ago
    is it though?
junon 5y ago
I think there's a difference between "airborne" and "aerosol". Isn't that why there's still a debate?
- yosito 5y ago
  AFAICT that's a semantic debate around the size and range of particles without universally agreed of definitions of the terms. Trying to categorize transmission into binary modes seems a little futile. Of course, studying and modelling the exact dynamics of particle transmission is useful, but the headline and linked study seemed to be related to a binary question of whether or not airborne transmission happens, which is a question that's been thoroughly answered for several months.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    It’s not a mere semantic debate - if I understand correctly (not a virologist or anything) the implications are huge. Droplets are ejected from the face and basically fall straight to the ground. This is what makes things like six feet “socially distancing” rules effective - you basically need to be in a direct, face-to-face interaction with someone to spread the virus. Airborne transmission in the technical sense means that the virus can float along in the air, potentially for hours in a poorly ventilated space: most social distancing NPIs become nearly meaningless. Staying outside or improving indoor ventilation become the big things that matter. Also, droplets are large and are stopped effectively even by the sort of cheap, relatively loose-fitting masks people are wearing. If airborne transmission is a major problem, that’s no longer really the case; we all need N95s to make much of an impact.
    - yosito 5y ago
      You're not wrong. But the point I'm making is that "droplet" vs "aerosol" is not binary. There is a wide range of particle sizes. There are particles that immediately fall to the ground, and there are particles that float around in the air for days, and there is everything in between. It's been shown for over a year that COVID can be transmitted in particles that float in the air for some time. Exactly how much time and in what conditions should be studied, but we're long past the question of whether it happens or not.
      - klmadfejno 5y ago
        That's an obvious insight I hadn't considered before.
reureu 5y ago
I don't think it's been obvious at all, at least as evidenced by preventive measures people take. If it's airborne, then "social distancing" (especially at 6 feet), hand washing, and cloth face coverings are not sufficient to prevent transmission. If it's droplet transmitted, then those all work quite well. I still see hotels, airlines, restaurants, etc pushing prevention measures that don't account for airborne transmission. So, while many (including myself) may feel there is no substantial debate to be had here, I'm not sure that the community at large has caught up.
- yosito 5y ago
  > I'm not sure that the community at large has caught up. Fair point. Where I live people seem obsessed with handwashing, but those same people are not afraid to go unmasked to a bar for hours.

jeffrallen 5y ago

Wait, why are we even discussing this? It's obviously airborne, and we obviously have to defeat it injustice visites, i.e. by vaccination. Sorry if I'm not being "scientific" enough here, but sometimes science is in position to common sense. This pandemic has stretched patience thin. Let's just finish this damn thing off. More shots in more arms, NOW!

scrollaway 5y ago
"It's obviously airborne" is what that article says, and it appears to be in response to this: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1 https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1
DougMerritt 5y ago
In infectious disease, "airborne" is defined to mean a certain maximum droplet size threshold, which I think is 100% misleading to non-specialists, but one can see why that might make sense to specialists. (I'm not an infectious disease specialist, so the above took me by surprise when I learned it.)

egberts1 5y ago

TL;DR Citing the original source by skipping the HN article: https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1 https://f1000research.com/articles/10-232/v1 Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions over airborne transmission. Me: in other words, we need more concrete detection method.

zed88 5y ago

Tbh...it all makes sense, given the speed of transmission and proves WHO useless again. I am wondering why WHO is getting it all wrong so far.