Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It is possible, but I think it depends on the state.

Quote

The number of positive tests in a state is not equal to the number of cases, as one person may be tested more than once.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html

North Carolina reports they only count a person once:

https://wlos.com/news/news-13-investigates/how-are-positive-covid-19-cases-recorded-if-a-person-is-tested-more-than-once

Quote

Over the course of the COVID-19 response, some people have been tested more than once. Some of these people are healthcare workers, some are at high-risk, and some are known cases who need to have negative tests to return to their normal life. VDH started reporting this method on May 1 as a better way to measure Virginia’s capacity to test people. It is included in the daily COVID-19 Cases in Virginia dashboard, the dashboard of cases and tests by ZIP code, and the Key Measures report. Regardless of how many times a person has been tested, they will only be counted as a case once.

https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/coronavirus/2020/05/07/how-is-vdh-calculating-the-number-of-people-tested/

People need to differentiate between number of tests given and number of cases counted.  The first will likely have one person taking multiple tests, such as if they have to test negative to work.

I am thinking this (case, not test) is probably what is meant when it is said they count someone once.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/pfizer-head-of-anti-viral-has-good-news-on-covid-19/

Quote

Richard S. Hutchins is an executive director for pharmaceutical sciences for Pfizer, responsible for oncology and anti-viral development. As such, he’s been one of those pioneers on the frontlines of vaccine development.

Before he answered our COVID-19 questions, he said, “Can I speak as a Latter-day Saint for just a second? I think God knows all things. He knew this was coming. I’m sure there are lots of valuable lessons we can take from it collectively and individually, institutionally and in the church, but also there needs to be a solution eventually. He has provided a way out.” New technology has been in place for two years that has allowed companies to do the unthinkable—provide a vaccine in record time. To Hutchins, this is no accident.

In the interview that follows, Hutchins answers the questions that we have all wanted to know.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

And we wonder why there is confusion about masks. The science was certainly not settled in February or March. Is it a wonder people are confused? 

https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/status/1282356452716433412?s=20

Read the thread. 

“Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."

https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

And we wonder why there is confusion about masks. The science was certainly not settled in February or March. Is it a wonder people are confused? 

https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/status/1282356452716433412?s=20

Read the thread. 

“Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected."

https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-directive-coronavirus

I don't find anything confusing.  I think people are either not paying attention or attempting to find excuses.  Logic suggest that anything that obstructs a pathogen from being expelled from the mouth or nose will lower the rates of infection.  The only thing that is not know is how much it reduces it.  Masks have been used with high effectiveness in other coronavirus outbreaks like MERS and SARS.  The people in Hong Kong have enough practice with masks and other things and that is why their current numbers are low.   It would be absurd to think that Fauci was not aware of this.   Fauci was right early on to make statements like he did not avoid a run on mask that where in short supply.  People like to horde stuff like TP and it was pretty obvious to me that is what he was doing. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/11/2020 at 4:36 AM, Calm said:

That article simply proposes a theory that pH in the stomach might increase risk of some complications of COVID, not necessarily make one more likely to get COVID.  COVID starts in the nose,  mouth, eyes, or lungs.  The stomach is not a known infection route.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't find anything confusing.  I think people are either not paying attention or attempting to find excuses.  Logic suggest that anything that obstructs a pathogen from being expelled from the mouth or nose will lower the rates of infection.  The only thing that is not know is how much it reduces it.  Masks have been used with high effectiveness in other coronavirus outbreaks like MERS and SARS.  The people in Hong Kong have enough practice with masks and other things and that is why their current numbers are low.   It would be absurd to think that Fauci was not aware of this.   Fauci was right early on to make statements like he did not avoid a run on mask that where in short supply.  People like to horde stuff like TP and it was pretty obvious to me that is what he was doing. 

I do think that one aspect has changed in our understanding with respect to masks. It’s always been known that if you put a mask on a sick person they are less likely to spread the disease that they have.
 

What was unknown back in February and March was how much pre-symptomatic spread was going on. So the general advise not to wear masks was in line with the idea that only sick people could spread the disease and sick people were supposed to stay home. 
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Not sure if anyone has posted this but there does seem to be a link between  Vitamin D deficiency and higher risk of serious COVID complications.  Vitamin D  is not a cure nor does it prevent, but it does play an important role in immune response.  Vitamin D deficiency is rampant in society today.  We spend more time indoors than ever.  Dark skin people, obese people, and older people have higher levels of Vitamin D deficiency.  My wife and I were Vitamin D deficient.  We had very low levels when we tested a few years ago.  We have taken supplements and both of us don't get sick as much.  They have found that Vitamin D sufficiency does led to lower number of upper respiratory tract infections.  Check your Vitamin D levels.  It its not a cure or a treatment but it will make your immune system stronger so if you do get infected, you can fight it better.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200702/More-evidence-on-vitamin-D-deficiency-and-death-rates-from-COVID-19.aspx

 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/no-evidence-that-vitamin-d-can-prevent-or-treat-covid-19  This article says that there is no evidence that Vitamin D helps prevent or treat COVID.  Right.  They misrepresent what is being said.  Vitamin D sufficiency helps the immune system.  You need to be sufficient before you are sick.  Taking large doses of Vitamin D once you are sick does nothing. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't find anything confusing.  I think people are either not paying attention or attempting to find excuses.  Logic suggest that anything that obstructs a pathogen from being expelled from the mouth or nose will lower the rates of infection.  The only thing that is not know is how much it reduces it.  Masks have been used with high effectiveness in other coronavirus outbreaks like MERS and SARS.  The people in Hong Kong have enough practice with masks and other things and that is why their current numbers are low.   It would be absurd to think that Fauci was not aware of this.   Fauci was right early on to make statements like he did not avoid a run on mask that where in short supply.  People like to horde stuff like TP and it was pretty obvious to me that is what he was doing. 

February and March, people were told masks don’t work...then they were told they do. In February scientists and experts told people they don’t need to wear masks and they quoted studies. This happened across all media. This has led to confusion. You might not be confused but others are and I understand why.

I wear a mask in public. But, it would have been better to tell people masks may help but save them for healthcare workers. Americans have been quite creative since masks were encouraged. Mistakes in messaging were made.

This last week, I found out my husband was exposed to someone covid positive at work. My brother was exposed at lunch with a friend. My daughter was exposed by her fiance’s best friend who stayed at their apartment just days before getting sick. My in-laws lost their best friend to covid and my father-in-law was exposed. 

So far, we are all still healthy.

Wear your mask. 🙂 

Locations: Clayton, Mo., San Francisco, Blackfoot, Idaho and Boise, Idaho. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That article simply proposes a theory that pH in the stomach might increase risk of some complications of COVID, not necessarily make one more likely to get COVID.  COVID starts in the nose,  mouth, eyes, or lungs.  The stomach is not a known infection route.

I need to go check my drug app to see if they overstated it or if it was me. It would not be the first error they made nor unfortunately my first error. 

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this has been covered, but I was wondering about the hard science behind mask wearing.

Is it true that the virus alone can go through most masks?

Is a mask effective because the virus is (almost) always carried by an aerosol droplet that doesn't pass through the mask?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Maybe this has been covered, but I was wondering about the hard science behind mask wearing.

Is it true that the virus alone can go through most masks?

Is a mask effective because the virus is (almost) always carried by an aerosol droplet that doesn't pass through the mask?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/21/880832213/yes-wearing-masks-helps-heres-why

Share this post


Link to post

If one pays attention, they'll see the why the 6ft rule (though it doesn't explicitly mention that rule).
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Reinfection articles and some posts from the now closed thread:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-19-immunity-lost-reinfection-530965

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-19-antibodies-fade-months-study/story?id=71406787

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73006-area-presidency-asks-that-church-members-in-utah-wear-face-masks/?do=findComment&comment=1209981909

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73006-area-presidency-asks-that-church-members-in-utah-wear-face-masks/?do=findComment&comment=1209982003

I am having this reinfection conversation elsewhere with some friends that has been mostly reassuring that even if reinfection every couple of months is an issue, human social life is not over by any means...it will not require perpetual lockdown or just having to allow ourselves to watch people die if we want to keep activities that require larger groups going, such as sports, arts, in person schooling, long distance traveling by planes, etc or public transportation.  Instead what will happen in a year or so is we will start seeing a less nasty version of the disease (attenuation...which is apparently also intentionally done using nonhuman hosts to produce longer lasting vaccines, such as in finding a mutation that is strong in a foreign host like an animal, but weak in humans...I wonder if they have to be sure that it won't be transmitted to animals once intentionally infecting humans with that version).***

Given how covid mutates (one report I read from quite awhile back estimated there is a mutation of Covid about once a month, not sure if that is seen as accurate now several months later), there are lots of versions out there now and it will be the ones that don't make people sick enough to be isolated that will come to dominate because that will be spread by those infected not staying home since they are either unaware they are sick or think they have something else or don't care or whatever.  

This has happened before with other diseases such as HIV and syphillis.

So if I understand it correctly, having antibodies from the less brutal versions of Covid would help us fight off the more brutal versions when exposed to them (since that how the attenuated vaccines work, they are apparently longer lasting as the virus in the vaccine is live and keeps reproducing so antibodies stick around and the body doesn't forget how to produce them.  Maybe someone familiar with this can confirm.

Worst case scenario then is likely Covid eventually becoming like our experience with the flu...and all those people who claimed Covid is just a bad flu will go "I told you so!"  :P 

I also imagine this Covid experience however it goes will cause some heavy investments in exploring vaccine and other medical technology for infectious diseases to get a bigger jump on the next novel infection, so we may end up in the not too distant future with vaccines that can be even quicker to market than the new RNA versions or other medical options for boosting immunity.  This may have the benefit of lessening the future impact of seasonal flu, HIV, other what would once have been bad outbreaks, and other widespread infectious diseases.

I am also curious about the future of the antivaxxer movement, will there be more acceptatance of vaccines if it is seen to prevent longterm damage as well as death in children?  Will people finally pay attention to the science that debunks some of the most inaccurate claims?  Will the tendency to see conspiracy theories coupled with the likely huge pressure to do vaccines so as to 'get back to normal' result in strengthing the appeal of antivaxxers...a concern for me given the whole mask issue, not only in the US but other parts of the world...though I am assuming resistance to masking varies by local?

***https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Nofear said:

If one pays attention, they'll see the why the 6ft rule (though it doesn't explicitly mention that rule).
 

 

What is interesting to me about mask videos is that shots are limited to what is happening immediately around the mouth. I wish someone would make a video that include air turbulence.  For example a video from a University in Florida showed  that with one mask very little got through the mask, however, almost everything blew out of side openings (path of least resistance).  Now if you add in factor in air turbulence created by walking / body movement, where are the air particles? And will six feet allow enough distance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Reinfection articles and some posts from the now closed thread:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/covid-19-immunity-lost-reinfection-530965

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-19-antibodies-fade-months-study/story?id=71406787

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/12/21321653/getting-covid-19-twice-reinfection-antibody-herd-immunity

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73006-area-presidency-asks-that-church-members-in-utah-wear-face-masks/?do=findComment&comment=1209981909

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73006-area-presidency-asks-that-church-members-in-utah-wear-face-masks/?do=findComment&comment=1209982003

I am having this reinfection conversation elsewhere with some friends that has been mostly reassuring that even if reinfection every couple of months is an issue, human social life is not over by any means...it will not require perpetual lockdown or just having to allow ourselves to watch people die if we want to keep activities that require larger groups going, such as sports, arts, in person schooling, long distance traveling by planes, etc or public transportation.  Instead what will happen in a year or so is we will start seeing a less nasty version of the disease (attenuation...which is apparently also intentionally done using nonhuman hosts to produce longer lasting vaccines, such as in finding a mutation that is strong in a foreign host like an animal, but weak in humans...I wonder if they have to be sure that it won't be transmitted to animals once intentionally infecting humans with that version).***

Given how covid mutates (one report I read from quite awhile back estimated there is a mutation of Covid about once a month, not sure if that is seen as accurate now several months later), there are lots of versions out there now and it will be the ones that don't make people sick enough to be isolated that will come to dominate because that will be spread by those infected not staying home since they are either unaware they are sick or think they have something else or don't care or whatever.  

This has happened before with other diseases such as HIV and syphillis.

So if I understand it correctly, having antibodies from the less brutal versions of Covid would help us fight off the more brutal versions when exposed to them (since that how the attenuated vaccines work, they are apparently longer lasting as the virus in the vaccine is live and keeps reproducing so antibodies stick around and the body doesn't forget how to produce them.  Maybe someone familiar with this can confirm.

Worst case scenario then is likely Covid eventually becoming like our experience with the flu...and all those people who claimed Covid is just a bad flu will go "I told you so!"  :P 

I also imagine this Covid experience however it goes will cause some heavy investments in exploring vaccine and other medical technology for infectious diseases to get a bigger jump on the next novel infection, so we may end up in the not too distant future with vaccines that can be even quicker to market than the new RNA versions or other medical options for boosting immunity.  This may have the benefit of lessening the future impact of seasonal flu, HIV, other what would once have been bad outbreaks, and other widespread infectious diseases.

I am also curious about the future of the antivaxxer movement, will there be more acceptatance of vaccines if it is seen to prevent longterm damage as well as death in children?  Will people finally pay attention to the science that debunks some of the most inaccurate claims?  Will the tendency to see conspiracy theories coupled with the likely huge pressure to do vaccines so as to 'get back to normal' result in strengthing the appeal of antivaxxers...a concern for me given the whole mask issue, not only in the US but other parts of the world...though I am assuming resistance to masking varies by local?

***https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine

While I appreciate the optimism and hope (which we all need), I think something needs to be explained.  HIV has become less deadly, but not by the process of attenuation.  Attenuation occurs by repeated replication of a virus in cells other than human cells.  Virus attenuation often occurs in chick embryos, for example. By adapting through replication in these new types of cells, they become less efficient at replicating in human cells.  Attenuation doesn't happen by replication over time in human cells.  Here's a helpful video to explain it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szfVMtyueks

We got very lucky with HIV and the line of mutation that it took, but there are viruses which have been around MUCH longer than HIV such as yellow fever, measles, varicella, and even the common cold (which is a coronavirus) etc. which have infected far more people and replicated over 100's of years in human cells and have not experienced any natural attenuation.  So, I think that hoping for a less nasty version of the disease in a year or so is probably a little overly optimistic and is not the normal or expected pattern of other highly infectious viruses. So, I don't think we should hold our breath that this virus will naturally weaken on its own.  We might get lucky and it takes the course of HIV or syphilis, but these viruses seem to be the exception rather than the rule. In fact, some viruses have evolved to become more efficient at infecting humans and have become more deadly the more they replicate in human cells and adapt (but this is more rare).  Viruses in general don't want to kill you quickly, a dead person is not an efficient host for replication and virulence.  I think Covid is already perfectly adapted to be effective at spreading disease without killing everyone, so it may not need to adapt to become any less deadly.   

Quote

So if I understand it correctly, having antibodies from the less brutal versions of Covid would help us fight off the more brutal versions when exposed to them (since that how the attenuated vaccines work, they are apparently longer lasting as the virus in the vaccine is live and keeps reproducing so antibodies stick around and the body doesn't forget how to produce them.  Maybe someone familiar with this can confirm.

The problem is that if these antibodies are shown to be short lived (evidence is growing), they will not give long-term protection to fight off more brutal versions.  It's as if our cells forget how to fight off the enemy and have to relearn with each new attack.   If this is the case, even vaccines will be short-lived and less effective and our best hope will be in finding an effective treatment.  

I too hope that some good will come out of this in terms of vaccine technology etc.  I remain hopeful that we will be able to return to some degree of normalcy, but this will likely come about by advancements in medicine rather than by natural attenuation or natural immunity (but we could get lucky). 

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

From Dan Peterson's blog:

Quote

And this (same link):

Quote

The New York Times (dated 7/14/2020)

Quote

Where new deaths are increasing

Charts {of 24 states} show daily deaths per capita and are on the same scale. States are sorted by total deaths in the last two weeks, from most to least. Click a state to see detailed map page.

These states have had the highest growth in newly reported deaths over the last 14 days. Deaths tend to rise a few weeks after a rise in infections, as there is typically a delay between when people are infected, when they die and when deaths are reported. Some deaths reported in the last two weeks may have occurred much earlier because of these delays.

From The Federalist (there is some political content in here, but please don't discuss it in this thread) :

Quote

Stanford Doctor: ‘Anyone Who Prioritizes Children Would Reopen The Schools’

 
JULY 14, 2020 By Jonah Gottschalk

Dr. Scott Atlas said it “feel(s) like I’m living in a Kafka novel” when watching politicians’ “hysteria” against school reopening, in an TV interview Monday with Martha MacCallum. According to the renowned doctor, school closings severely damage children’s’ development and generate next to no gains for public health.

“I’m not sure how many times it has to be said, but the risk to children for this disease, for fatalities, is nearly zero. I mean, this is totally antithetical to the data,” he said. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a health-care expert, and former professor and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center.
...
Recent research using contact tracing has confirmed that children rarely transmit to each other or to adults, making classroom settings a safer environment than similarly sized groups of adults. Those advocating for keeping schools closed or only partially reopening “are people who either don’t know the data or are refractory to learning themselves because the facts say otherwise,” Atlas said.

From CNS News:

Quote

CDC: COVID-19 Deaths for Week Ending June 27 Down 91.9% From Mid-April Peak
By Susan Jones | July 14, 2020 | 5:43am EDT

(CNSNews.com) - In the week that ended on June 27, there were 1,363 deaths in the United States involving COVID-19, which was a 91.9 percent drop from the peak of 16,895 COVID-involved deaths reported for the week that ended on April 18, according to the provisional COVID-19 death counts published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The numbers updated by NCHS on July 13 show the weekly COVID-involved death count, based on death certificates, has been steadily dropping since the mid-April peak, even as the number of cases is rising, especially in Sunbelt states of Florida, Texas, Arizona and California.

The NCHS reports COVID-involved deaths weekly, updating the numbers as more death certificates come in. Based on the July 13 data, COVID deaths for the week ending June 27 (1,363) dropped 50.1 percent from the 2,733 posted for the prior week of June 20.

covid-chart.jpg

"Provisional death counts deliver the most complete and accurate picture of lives lost to COVID-19," says NCHS. However, provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as more records are received and processed.

From Just The News:

Quote

COVID-19 is close to losing its epidemic status in the U.S., according to the CDC

The percentage of coronavirus deaths in the country has been declining for ten straight weeks.

Coronavirus deaths in the country have nearly reached a level where the virus will cease to qualify as an epidemic under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rules, the federal agency reported on Friday. 

The CDC qualifies a disease outbreak as an "epidemic" if the number of deaths attributable to the disease exceeds a certain percentage of total deaths per week. That threshold for pneumonia, influenza and COVID-19 fluctuates slightly depending on the time of year, ranging from around 7% at the height of flu season to around 5% during less virulent months. 

CDC data indicate that deaths from those ailments began skyrocketing in the country around the second week of March, hitting a peak around early May and then plummeting quickly after that. 

The latest data show that the percentage of deaths in the country attributable to those factors had as of the last week in June reached its lowest point since the end of last year, becoming "equal to the [current] epidemic threshold of 5.9%," the CDC said. 

The agency notes that the official tally of deaths "will likely change as more death certificates are processed, particularly for recent weeks." Yet the number of deaths attributable to COVID-19, pneumonia and influenza have been declining for 10 straight weeks, the agency said on its website, suggesting COVID-19 may cease to qualify as an epidemic in the next few weeks. 

The welcome news comes as fear over a "second wave" of the virus has gripped the U.S., with some states experiencing fresh surges of COVID-19 along with increased hospitalizations. 

Fox News:

Quote

FOX 35 INVESTIGATES: Hospitals confirm mistakes in Florida’s COVID-19 report

The Florida Department of Health released its daily coronavirus testing report showing a statewide positivity rate of 11 percent, but FOX 35 News investigated and quickly noticed some shocking positivity rates.

Countless labs have reported a 100 percent positivity rate, which means every single person tested was positive. Other labs had very high positivity rates. FOX 35 found that testing sites like Centra Care reported that 83 people were tested and all tested positive. Then, NCF Diagnostics in Alachua reported 88 percent of tests were positive.

How could that be? FOX 35 News investigated these astronomical numbers, contacting every local location mentioned in the report.

The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health’s positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.

The report also showed that the Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had a positivity rate of 76 percent. A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the center is actually 6 percent.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

What is interesting to me about mask videos is that shots are limited to what is happening immediately around the mouth. I wish someone would make a video that include air turbulence.  For example a video from a University in Florida showed  that with one mask very little got through the mask, however, almost everything blew out of side openings (path of least resistance).  Now if you add in factor in air turbulence created by walking / body movement, where are the air particles? And will six feet allow enough distance.

I'd like to see some studies around what is going on with the nose during normal breathing.  Obviously sneezing is a deal breaker but with normal breathing out of the nose with the mouth closed, what is the risk of spread?  Does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'd like to see some studies around what is going on with the nose during normal breathing.  Obviously sneezing is a deal breaker but with normal breathing out of the nose with the mouth closed, what is the risk of spread?  Does anyone know?

A breath: A single breath releases 50 - 5000 droplets. Most of these droplets are low velocity and fall to the ground quickly. There are even fewer droplets released through nose-breathing. Importantly, due to the lack of exhalation force with a breath, viral particles from the lower respiratory areas are not expelled.

Unlike sneezing and coughing which release huge amounts of viral material, the respiratory droplets released from breathing only contain low levels of virus. We don't have a number for SARS-CoV2 yet, but we can use influenza as a guide. Studies have shown that a person infected with influenza can releases up to 33 infectious viral particles per minute.

 

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200511&instance_id=18384&nl=the-morning&regi_id=53809529&segment_id=27239&te=1&user_id=8e277b25afc9be3669041ccfbfa42e04

 

The author explains that you need to inhale around 1000 virus particles to become infected.  For simple math he used 20 particles exhaled per minute, which means you would need to inhale 20 particles per minute for 50 minutes to become infected by someone from just their breathing.

This was written before the recent indications that aerosol and not just droplet spread is possible.

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'd like to see some studies around what is going on with the nose during normal breathing.  Obviously sneezing is a deal breaker but with normal breathing out of the nose with the mouth closed, what is the risk of spread?  Does anyone know?

The virus is encapsulated in tiny particles of droplets and aerosols in a river of air from the lungs.  Think of the virus like microscopic rubber ducks in a stream of water which exits your lungs.   Whether that stream exits one orifice or another, those microscopic rubber duckies are going to exit with it.  The virus lives in the lungs and nasal passage ways (where it is collected for testing). 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

The virus is encapsulated in tiny particles of droplets and aerosols in a river of air from the lungs.  Think of the virus like microscopic rubber ducks in a stream of water which exits your lungs.   Whether that stream exits one orifice or another, those microscopic rubber duckies are going to exit with it.  The virus lives in the lungs and nasal passage ways (where it is collected for testing). 

I understand that.  What I'm wondering if the nose (having no symptoms and just operating regularly) produces less droplets and aerosols than the mouth does during mouth breathing or talking.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

A breath: A single breath releases 50 - 5000 droplets. Most of these droplets are low velocity and fall to the ground quickly. There are even fewer droplets released through nose-breathing. Importantly, due to the lack of exhalation force with a breath, viral particles from the lower respiratory areas are not expelled.

Unlike sneezing and coughing which release huge amounts of viral material, the respiratory droplets released from breathing only contain low levels of virus. We don't have a number for SARS-CoV2 yet, but we can use influenza as a guide. Studies have shown that a person infected with influenza can releases up to 33 infectious viral particles per minute.

 

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20200511&instance_id=18384&nl=the-morning&regi_id=53809529&segment_id=27239&te=1&user_id=8e277b25afc9be3669041ccfbfa42e04

 

The author explains that you need to inhale around 1000 virus particles to become infected.  For simple math he used 20 particles exhaled per minute, which means you would need to inhale 20 particles per minute for 50 minutes to become infected by someone from just their breathing.

This was written before the recent indications that aerosol and not just droplet spread is possible.

Thank you, that's what I was wondering.  It looks like studies have shown that nose breathing (without symptoms like sneezing or a runny nose) spreads fewer droplets than breathing and talking using the mouth.  If we can't get people to wear masks, I wonder if we could have success in getting asymptomatic people to focus on keeping their mouths closed when in public?   Could that have a positive effect on virus spread? 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Interesting article coming from you.  A few snippets:

Quote

 

Because of the intense polarization in our country, a great many Americans now see the life-and-death decisions of the coronavirus as political choices rather than medical ones. In the absence of a unifying narrative and competent national leadership, Americans have to choose whom to believe as they make decisions about how to live: the scientists and the public-health experts, whose advice will necessarily change as they learn more about the virus, treatment, and risks? Or President Donald Trump and his acolytes, who suggest that masks and social distancing are unnecessary or “optional”?

How to resolve this dissonance? People could avoid the crowds, parties, and bars and wear a mask. Or they could jump back into their former ways. But to preserve their belief that they are smart and competent and would never do anything foolish to risk their lives, they will need some self-justifications: Claim that masks impair their breathing, deny that the pandemic is serious, or protest that their “freedom” to do what they want is paramount.

Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible. The challenge is to find a way to live with uncertainty, make the most informed decisions we can, and modify them when the scientific evidence dictates—as our leading researchers are already doing. Admitting we were wrong requires some self-reflection—which involves living with the dissonance for a while rather than jumping immediately to a self-justification.

This nasty, mysterious virus will require us all to change our minds as scientists learn more, and we may have to give up some practices and beliefs about it that we now feel sure of. The alternative will be to double down, ignore the error, and wait, as Trump is waiting, for the “miracle” of the virus disappearing.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand that.  What I'm wondering if the nose (having no symptoms and just operating regularly) produces less droplets and aerosols than the mouth does during mouth breathing or talking.

The nose is more filtered with hairs and a smaller passage way, which might reduce some droplets slightly, but those filters are no match for smaller microscopic particles.  It is like passing sand through a mesh screen.  The sand will pass through just fine but some larger particles might be blocked.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thank you, that's what I was wondering.  It looks like studies have shown that nose breathing (without symptoms like sneezing or a runny nose) spreads fewer droplets than breathing and talking using the mouth.  If we can't get people to wear masks, I wonder if we could have success in getting asymptomatic people to focus on keeping their mouths closed when in public?   Could that have a positive effect on virus spread? 

This doesn't address aerosols however.  I think our time is better spent convincing people about the efficacy of masks rather than teaching the less efficacious nose breathing (which most people do anyway when not talking). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...