Well I don’t know exactly how they worked this out, but it appears the transmission there was from Europe instead of Asia like might have been originally assumed. It’s something about how the mutations work I am guessing.
All the information you need here -
ACE2 is also a pretty likely explanation as to why the virus is more dangerous to men (men have more ACE2 receptors than women), and also why there have been many cases of people who seem to eventually fight off the pneumonia-like symptoms only to be then tragically struck down by a heart infection (ACE2 is also found in heart tissue). Might also be a factor in the disparities between different ethnicities.
Surfaces probably not but of course people should still be careful. A German study couldn't find a living virus in 70 live infected households, just dead traces. It doesn't survive outside of a droplet and they will dry up fast on surfaces and dissolve on skin and clothes. It's probably close contact inhalation and sustained inhalation of smaller droplets in confined environments from work/tube trains/indoor events/dining/drinking to home which is all tied together. I'm posting about all these environments, not just offices.
Surely NZ/AUS can screen any passenger that comes into their country? If you come in through airports you can submit to a test at your country of origin and by the time you land (assuming it's a long ass flight) your results should be ready. If negative, you're allowed in, if not the whole plane gets quarantined and dealt with.
That was a good read, thanks. Especially the case studies.
I had a look at that article. First of a lot is not referenced.
How far a droplet travels really depends on quite a few factors. Saying most droplets are "large" doesn't mean anything in this context. Saying droplets fall quickly due to gravity alone is only half the picture. Some of the droplets will also settle faster because of the additional momentum (and consequently a velocity component) they gained during the sneeze/cough etc. Think of it like firing a gun downwards - the bullet will fall because of gravity and also the energy imparted onto the bullet by the mechanism in the gun. Compare that to just dropping a single bullet from your hand from a great height and watching it fall due to gravity.
If there is a negligible amount of motion in the air, it is very unlikely the smallest droplets will fill quickly every corner of a modest sized room. Molecular transport processes take a long time to transport contaminants across large distances. This is discussed in the seminal book by Lumley in Chapter 1 in "A first course turbulence", see page 8-9 [here]. If there is a small degree of motion, then it is possible. But you need to also then consider that greater motion may also lead to greater evaporation.
They measured the velocity of air, using these "tracer" droplets when the air flow was 10m/s. So effectively the droplets were moving at 10m/s and evaporation was an issue. 10m/s is about 22mph. So you can imagine how problematic evaporation could be at 200mph, as is the claimed velocity of the droplets during a sneeze. Evaporation is not my background, but it is definitely something which is being ignored by articles that I am reading. I would like to see an article which explains this process specifically, rather than articles trying to explain dispersion properties which are based on obscure simulations or very niche experiments.
If you want insight, read review papers from annual review journal publications e.g. [here], textbooks e.g. [here], or listen to qualified individuals giving lectures (on Youtube for example). You shouldn't read random articles which do not do a good job of explaining anything at all and worse still add very few references. Whilst the article is written by a person within biology, people who specialise in biology are probably not qualified to speak about droplet dispersion in quiescent and turbulent flows.
Genuine question: what is your level of expertise is on this subject?
I have a PhD in experimental multiphase flows, specifically droplet and particle dispersion in turbulent flows and the study of droplet-droplet/particle collisions. That doesn't really imply I understand anything (I really don't understand much at all). However, I do have some awareness of the important topics by exposure of reading hundreds of literature papers (at least 50 in full), vast amounts of sections/chapters in textbooks and carrying out experiments using well established laser diagnostic techniques in the field, which also required using a half face reusable face mask. The latter is why I felt I could give my opinion about them earlier in the thread - I spent a good amount of time using one. I also used reusable FFP2 masks.
I think you are right. If we don’t get a vaccine for a couple of years, or ever, which seems entirely possible then having no natural immunity in the population surely makes that country much more vulnerable to future outbreaks.
You're doing something important. Your visit is probably as close to a few minutes of respite support as she gets at the moment. Just having someone to share part of the day, and break what can be a stifling pattern for a little while, is a huge thing, even if your do have to maintain a distance.
Completely take your point and everything you’ve written makes sense for sure. And agree that the article in question didn’t contain proper references etc.
Next week: brothels at the center of the latest coronavirus outbreak
I disagree. This study found the virus was stable on surfaces for much longer than in air. This is why cleaning of high contact surfaces is so important, as well as good ventilation.
I agree with you mate, mental health is a massive issue. I don't see an issue with what you are doing, I was just pointing out the advice. It's hard for the older people and especially if they have other conditions and the toll this is taking on everyone's mental health has been understated.
That isn’t watertight, which is why most countries are enforcing 14 day quarantines. Someone who has only just been exposed to the virus might not test positive until a few days after getting infected
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Thanks, Grin.
I thought they did a pretty good job of explaining and - while it wasn’t comprehensive enough to be peer reviewed - they did provide references. Was there any element of it you particularly disagreed with? I know a bit about biology but feck all about droplet dispersion.
Workplaces get hours to implement Covid-secure environments, Gov get 4 weeks to implement testing rises, airport quarantines and so on. It's a farce.
Agreed. Mind you, I’ve not been able to buy any proper ones anywhere. I’ve seen some local ladies that have taken to sewing their own and selling them, or dodgy looking eBay sellers.
I searched for furlough scheme yesterday evening and it seems to be all over newspaper and business sites.
I don't think it's baseless, there is very likely a high number of people who have had the virus before testing came into play and they just won't know until bulk antibody tests are taken. I know of 6 people alone who were tested because they work in NHS, and they barely had any symptoms - all were positive for covid.
Opinion and anecdotes don't cut it as a basis for scientific opinion. Not when we've had official view from the CSO saying 4% infected so far.
Two things, the people you are talking about are the most likely to be in contact with the virus(or any virus during an epidemic) and only around 10% of the people tested are positive(in pretty much all countries). It's actually unlikely that a high number of people have had the virus before.
It was just an example, I'm saying that pre-lockdown there would have been many many people who suffered some symptoms, weren't tested and may well have had the virus. I don't find that unlikely.
NI is part of the UK
I understand, but I just ask how is that calculated, exactly?
The prevalence of the virus was either lower or equivalent otherwise ICUs would have been swamped way before lockdowns, so it's highly unlikely that a lot of people got the virus before when we know that we were swamped when only around 10% of people that had symptoms and were tested ended up being positive. It would actually be fair to say that not a lot of people got the virus.
There’s no evidence that they’re of any benefit, Whitty has been saying this for weeks! The only reason they’re talking about them now is to make people feel better or less scared if they have to go on the train etc to work. Placebo effect.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah that is what is baffling about claims that 'most people have already had it and had gone symptomless'. We know what happened in Italy, Spain, New York or UK when cases started piling up, hospitals got full quickly and the curve for positive tests started climbing up. Barring some incredible coincidence, which would have happened in all countries simultaneously, there's just no chance that a lot of people had got it before late Feb/early Mar outbreak.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That doesn't really matter when there's no border between NI and Ireland.
Surely that becomes murder
