Covid-19: Know Your Risks

[reedboat2]

Some interesting research from U Mass, Amherst on risk factors for Covid-19 transmission:

erinbromage.com/post/the-ri...

[ParlePark]

Good article. Makes sense

[parkie13]

Thank you for posting.

[WinnieThePoo]

Interesting. Passes my first fact check of an apparently qualified professional. But it contradicts WHO advice on a point they have specifically addressed - namely aerosol transmission. I'll look more later but the Chinese restaurant reference suggests droplet transmission to one of each of the 2 infected families and subsequent infection of the rest of the diners by the conventional domestic route once they got home, and not as implied here direct infection on site of all diners affected.

wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/2...

[reedboat2 in reply to WinnieThePoo]

Winnie- In the study referred to, aerosol transmission is not ruled out. Greater than or equal to one member from each of families B&C are presumed to have been infected by airborne droplets,

“Given the incubation periods for family B, the most likely scenario is that all 3 family B members were directly infected by patient A1. However, we cannot not exclude the possibility that patients B2 and B3 were infected by patient B1, the first family B member to become ill. For family C, a possible scenario is that both patients C1 and C2 were infected by patient A1; another scenario is that the patient C1 acquired the infection while caring for patient C2, beginning on January 27.”

[WinnieThePoo in reply to reedboat2]

Yes. It's not like its a nutcase consipiracy theory. The core advice is mainstream and sound. Inside is higher risk than outside. Large gatherings are riskier. Hot and dry is better than cool and humid.

It's the specific assertion that transmission by aerosol instead of droplet is possible. So why have WHO got this so badly wrong? What is their motive? Why is there not an outcry from experts worldwide, aware of the WHO stance on this? Where's the grimey buck? What does anybody gain by claiming aerosol transmission is only possible in limited circumstances (like ITU's) when the truth is that anybody with a regular cough or sneeze produces aerosol particles? Where is the next alien landing?

I repeat - basically I found it a good article, and would follow the core advice. It's the aerosol bit troubles me. If its true - then why are WHO and all mainstream experts suppressing the truth or too stupid to spot it? If its not true - will it lead us into false fears, and maybe false complacencies? Should we wash our hands more and touch our faces less?

[Kevin51 in reply to WinnieThePoo]

I agree. The aerosol route for infection is controversial and he should have said so. But it matters a lot to how I am going to behave post-lockdown so it would be nice to know for sure. Some research papers say it is plausible; the medics say not in their experience apart from some aerosol generating ICU procedures in hospitals. See below (especially the replies) nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N...

[Kevin51 in reply to Kevin51]

also

jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

seme.org/site/docs/covid-19...

[WinnieThePoo in reply to Kevin51]

I spent a bit of time looking this afternoon and while there were plenty of press stories from around 3 weeks ago of aerosol transmission there were none i would be happy relying on. And I failed completely to find a credible scientific paper. That deafening silence bothers me a bit.