Just Wanted to Get this Message Out

  • Thread starter Thread starter j1m2f3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QContinuum said:
" The virus is typically transmitted through respiratory droplets, such as when someone sneezes or coughs, but a new study indicated that it [can remain suspended in the air] for up to three hours."
Click to expand...
I read through your material. There isn’t anything definite in the claims you linked to.

First point…

Aerosol transmission has been defined as person-to-person transmission of pathogens through the air by means of inhalation of infectious particles. Particles up to 100 μm in size are considered inhalable (inspirable). These aerosolized particles are small enough to be inhaled into the oronasopharynx, with the smaller, respirable size ranges (eg, < 10 μm) penetrating deeper into the trachea and lung Aerosols are emitted not only by “aerosol-generating procedures,” but may also be transmitted whenever an infected person coughs, sneezes, talks, or exhales.

Adding talks or exhales to the discussion of “aerosol generating procedures” depends upon a couple of things. The difference in size between 10 μm which can be inhaled easily and 100 μm which “are considered inspirable” requires some parsing.

First of all, can viruses, in particular COVID-19 would need to be able to survive in aerosols between 10 μm and 100 μm in order for them to be inhaled “easily.”

Those numbers don’t quite align with this study in terms of what is inhalable.

This one claims the aerosol particles can be smaller than 4 µm in aerodynamic diameter which is quite a bit smaller than between 10 μm and 100 μm.
A slightly smaller proportion of the influenza A RNA was in particles ≤ 4.1 µm in aerodynamic diameter (42 percent) compared with the earlier study by Blachere and colleagues (2009) (53 percent). These studies indicate that aerosolized particles exist in this specific urgent care setting. However, the viability of the influenza viruses was not ascertained, and therefore it is not possible to quantify the importance of the identified aerosol particles to transmission in the hospital setting.
Click to expand...
This is the crucial point though. The study found…
Of the influenza viral RNA detected, 65 percent was contained in particles in the respirable range (< 4 µm), suggesting that these particles could be inhaled and deposited in the alveolar region of the lungs. Viable virus was detected in the cough aerosols of some infected patients.
Click to expand...
Why is this important? Because it doesn’t address whether breathing out can form aerosols of a size that would permit viruses to survive. It specifically identifies cough aerosols as producing that size of particles. And that size of particle can be breathed in. However, the generation of aerosols that could contain viruses merely by breathing out is the important question.

Continued…
 
Last edited:
This addresses the question of how long aerosols of different sizes could remain airborne.


This study summarizes the answer in this way.

Droplets carried in exhaled breath may carry microorganisms capable of transmitting disease over both short and long distances. The size distribution of such droplets will influence the type of organisms that may be carried as well as strategies for controlling airborne infection. The aim of this study was to characterize the size distribution of droplets exhaled by healthy individuals. Exhaled droplets from human subjects performing four respiratory actions (mouth breathing, nose breathing, coughing, talking) were measured by both an optical particle counter (OPC) and an analytical transmission electron microscope (AEM). The OPC indicated a preponderance of particles less than 1 μ, although larger particles were also found. Measurements with the AEM confirmed the existence of larger sized droplets in the exhaled breath. In general, coughing produced the largest droplet concentrations and nose breathing the least, although considerable intersubject variability was observed.

I would assume that since coughing and talking are included in the generating mechanisms that mere exhaling by nose or mouth wouldn’t create very many particles greater than 1 μ, which means exhalation is very likely not a viable source of adding viruses into the air.
 
With all due respect, it is counterproductive to blame the “healthcare CEOs.”

Even if it’s appropriate to do so…is posting on the internet going to make the situation better?

With equally due respect, there is very little if any hard information by reliable sources on this board.

What is the most reliable, up to date information available?

That the experts don’t know how long this will last; how many will be exposed and have symptoms; or how many will die.

And for all you folks who think you know something about this virus because they’re a nurse; know a doctor; or play one on TV; the wild card is that viruses like Covid-19 can…MUTATE.

That’s right, the virus we’re seeing may be mutating or have already mutated from what broke out in Wuhan.

Seriously, folks: stay in; wash your hands 50 times a day; distance yourself from strangers; pray; and enjoy each day like it was your last.
 
Last edited:
I have absolutely no skin in the game. I am a retired educator. However, I do have relatives who are family doctors.
 
VonDerTann said:
And for all you folks who think you know something about this virus because they’re a nurse; know a doctor; or play one on TV; the wild card is that viruses like Covid-19 can…MUTATE.

That’s right, the virus we’re seeing may be mutating or have already mutated from what broke out in Wuhan.
Click to expand...
Viruses can mutate, but the overwhelming numbers of mutations make them less viable, which is why virus strains generally become less dangerous over time.
RNA viruses essentially operate without a spell-check, they often make mistakes. These “mistakes” are mutations, and viruses mutate rapidly compared to other organisms. While this might sound frightening, mistakes during replication usually produce changes that are neutral or even harmful to the newly generated virus.
Source: Coronavirus mutations: Much ado about nothing - CNN
Click to expand...
The point here is that genetic code is what needs to be transmitted with each replication of the virus. The mechanism for doing that is very faulty and prone to errors.

Think of a software program you are running on your computer. if every time you ran it, it had to replicate itself, and each replication threw errors into the program, would you suppose the program would become better, more robust and effective, or less so?

Each mutation will almost always make a virus less viable, not stronger. The odds are highly, highly stacked against the virus becoming more dangerous.
 
Last edited:
This was an animal virus. It started in animals and jumped (mutated?!) to humans. The fact is that at present no one can predict what the mutations will be.

Once again this forum is not a hard science site and it should not be mistaken for anything other than laypersons offering opinions. Some of those opinions are more fact-based than others.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
The University of Hong Kong and Shenzhen Hospital tested various homemade masks and came up with one which is 90% as effective as a regular one, and apparently more effective than a cotton mask. This is the video:

Basically take two layers of paper towel, cover with a layer of facial tissue, cut in half if needed, tape the edges with masking tape to hold together, tape one of those plastic things with a metal wire in it (used to keep plastic bags closed) to be the nose piece, punch holes in each corner and put rubber bands through each and there you have a face mask.

I don’t know if its effectiveness requires the reuseable full face mask (use small binder clips to hold a plastic folder in place over your face).
Click to expand...
Here’s another mask, from a Taiwanese doctor, that is basically a holder for the filter materials, which are same or similar to those described in your video.

I think there must be some error in the translation to English; look at the pictures and see for yourself. My take on the instructions:

Made from ordinary woven cloth, it is washable and reusable, with a disposable filter.

Whatever passes through the woven cloth is intended to get trapped in the microfibre (tissues) inserts.

@j1m2f3, so sorry you are asked to work in conditions without the best of equipment. What do you think of this alternate method, for people with symptoms, or for caregivers, to help reduce transmission?

mustsharenews.com

Taiwanese Doctor Teaches How To DIY Cloth Face Mask With Air Filter, So No Need To Scramble At Stores

On Friday (7 Feb), Dr Chen Xiaoting, a Taiwanese anaesthesiologist, shared instructions on creating a cloth face mask with air filters.
mustsharenews.com mustsharenews.com
 
Last edited:
I am having trouble with hearing about people who are sick and going everywhere, shopping and eating, and going to work where there are critical people keeping the wheels from falling off.
 
Hello Harry,

First of all, I appreciate the sources you provided, especially the PPT. Quite handy.

Secondly, I need you to clarify some of your points in your post to make sure I understand your meaning properly.

A. I understand the emphasis on exhalation, with regards to droplet versus airborne transmission. However, aerosol transmission is a phrase bandied about quite loosely even in academic articles. In many papers, when discussing airborne transmission, they refer to it as “aerosol” and include coughing as one of the means by which particles may spread.

Given that the concern here is healthcare professionals and the level of PPE needed to be protected, I would think that the aerosol transmission of viral particles through coughing from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 would more than sufficiently supported both by the scientific literature thus far, and by the anecdotal accounts given by many health care professionals battling this in other countries. Yet, you seem primarily concerned with only respiration as a means of aerosol transmission? Am I misunderstanding you?

B. The second point I am hoping you will clarify for me is what is your standard for “very likely?” When I am looking at the literature, there are several studies out there that cite considerable epidemiological evidence for the SARS virus to have demonstrated airborne transmission as likely. I am finding newer articles on SARS-CoV-2 to reference these studies as well as the aforementioned experiences in the field as reasons why it is also considered to be capable of airborne transmission.

Here are some of the analyses I’m looking at:

Source: COMMENTARY: COVID-19 transmission messages should hinge on science | CIDRAP

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Source:

link.springer.com

Recognition of aerosol transmission of infectious agents: a commentary - BMC Infectious Diseases

Although short-range large-droplet transmission is possible for most respiratory infectious agents, deciding on whether the same agent is also airborne has a potentially huge impact on the types (and costs) of infection control interventions that are required.The concept and definition of...
link.springer.com link.springer.com

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And there is this excerpt from one of the sources I cited in my first post:

“Current studies in different indoor environments, however, indicate that SARS may be transmitted through the airborne route as well [48]. Several clusters of infection have been reported, which point to a likely transmission by this route, including transmission in an aircraft from an infected person to passengers located 7 rows of seats ahead [49], a cluster of cases among guests sharing the same floor of a hotel [50], and another, counting more than 1000 persons, in an apartment complex in Hong Kong [51]. A detailed investigation on the latter outbreak linked it to aerosol generated by the building’s sewage system. In addition, many health care workers were infected after endotracheal intubation and bronchoscopy procedures which often involve aerosolization. These observations indicate the possible role of more remote modes of transmission, including airborne spread by small droplet nuclei, and emphasize the need for adequate respiratory protection in addition to strict contact and droplet precautions when managing SARS patients.”
Source:
https://www.scielosp.org/article/aiss/2013.v49n2/124-132/

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
QContinuum said:
Hello Harry,

First of all, I appreciate the sources you provided, especially the PPT. Quite handy.

Secondly, I need you to clarify some of your points in your post to make sure I understand your meaning properly.

A. I understand the emphasis on exhalation, with regards to droplet versus airborne transmission. However, aerosol transmission is a phrase bandied about quite loosely even in academic articles. In many papers, when discussing airborne transmission, they refer to it as “aerosol” and include coughing as one of the means by which particles may spread.

Given that the concern here is healthcare professionals and the level of PPE needed to be protected, I would think that the aerosol transmission of viral particles through coughing from patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 would more than sufficiently supported both by the scientific literature thus far, and by the anecdotal accounts given by many health care professionals battling this in other countries. Yet, you seem primarily concerned with only respiration as a means of aerosol transmission? Am I misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...
The reason I bring up respiration is to attempt to put into perspective that mere exhalation by itself doesn’t put into the air droplets of a size to be home to virus particles, coughing or sneezing would be required to produce aerosol particles large enough to contain virus particles.

Larger aerosol particles are less likely to remain in the air for very long.

So yes, being in the line of a sneeze or cough is likely to be problematic, but moving about in a space occupied by others breathing is far less likely to be an issue.

I have also read that the virus tends to hang about in the throat for 3-4 days before passing into the lungs, so a good preventative is to drink warm liquids/warm water every 20 minutes or so to wash any viruses that might be present into the stomach where it will be neutralized by gastric acids.
 
I have heard of the “preventative drinking” tactic, but I admit, I am really skeptical of the effectiveness. I have been taking my Vitamin D however. Perhaps if I washed it down with coffee, that would add to the acidity?
 
Margaret_Ann said:
40.png
Annie:
it (used to keep plastic bags closed) to be the nose piece,
Click to expand...
A twist tie as a nose piece? I can’t picture it.
Click to expand...
I can picture it. Lay twist tie at end of tissue, roll, bend to fit nose.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The preventative drinking has been debunked by several doctors on news programs.
 
Thank you, Convert. Glad I’m not the only one who was taken aback by that bit of advice.
 
Then by your standards we should have stock piling billions of rounds of ammo, steel, canned goods after WWI so when WWII hit we’d be ready…I mean, we had decades right?
 
I said nothing about every. But let’s face it, there have been other viruses, and we should have learned from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top