| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| mac wrote: | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/10/05/cdc-coronavirus-airborne-transmission/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F2c00009%2F5f7c94f19d2fda0efb40c816%2F5976d6ccade4e26514ba9956%2F13%2F62%2F8ba363ebb1318fc3ab3f1d8fae82da47 |
no cited peer reviewed science to back it up. WHO has not changed their stance. Again the worlds top have not been convinced and again no-one has posted a peer reviewed document showing that contact has been ruled out in any case study. as I have noted with 70,000 plus contact trcing of bullet trains with average of 2 hour ride before masks sitting next to infected person 3.6% chance of catching it, sit in front of the infected the direction you are breathing half of that. If airborne the percentage sitting next to and in front of , again we are talking feet to 2 feet and the train with no outside air should be closer to 50-90 percent in 2 hours. Same with the plane where there were 6 infected people and a over 4 hour flight, just 2 people ended up catching it.
https://www.livescience.com/who-covid-19-airborne-transmission-update.html
WHO releases new COVID-19 guidance on airborne transmission, but it doesn't change much
By Rachael Rettner - Senior Writer July 09, 2020
WHO said airborne transmission of COVID-19 "cannot be ruled out."
[quote]
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
here is a very good one for showing c-19 was not in the air but on surfaces several days after diagnosis. Note this is peer reviewed science. testing feb 6- april 10 and just published.
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0008570
Air and surface contamination in non-health care settings among 641 environmental specimens of 39 COVID-19 cases
| Quote: | Abstract
Little is known about the SARS-CoV-2 contamination of environmental surfaces and air in non-health care settings among COVID-19 cases. We explored the SARS-CoV-2 contamination of environmental surfaces and air by collecting air and swabbing environmental surfaces among 39 COVID-19 cases in Guangzhou, China. The specimens were tested on RT-PCR. The information collected for COVID-19 cases included basic demographic, clinical severity, symptoms at onset, radiological testing, laboratory testing and hospital admission. A total of 641 environmental surfaces and air specimens were collected among 39 COVID-19 cases before disinfection. Among them, 20 specimens (20/641, 3.1%) were tested positive from 9 COVID-19 cases (9/39, 23.1%), with 5 (5/101, 5.0%) positive specimens from 3 asymptomatic cases, 5 (5/220, 2.3%) from 3 mild cases, and 10 (10/374, 2.7%) from 3 moderate cases. All positive specimens were collected within 3 days after diagnosis, and 10 (10/42, 23.8%) were found in toilet (5 on toilet bowl, 4 on sink/faucet/shower, 1 on floor drain), 4 (4/21, 19.0%) in anteroom (2 on water dispenser/cup/bottle, 1 on chair/table, 1 on TV remote), 1 (1/8, 12.5%) in kitchen (1 on dining-table), 1 (1/18, 5.6%) in bedroom (1 on bed/sheet pillow/bedside table), 1 (1/5, 20.0%) in car (1 on steering wheel/seat/handlebar) and 3 (3/20, 21.4%) on door knobs. Air specimens in room (0/10, 0.0%) and car (0/1, 0.0%) were all negative. SARS-CoV-2 was found on environmental surfaces especially in toilet, and may survive for several days. We provided evidence of potential for SARS-CoV-2 transmission through contamination of environmental surfaces.
Author summary
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has precipitated a global crisis. It is important to understanding the SARS-CoV-2 contamination of environmental surfaces and air in non-health care settings among COVID-19 cases. In this study, we explored the SARS-CoV-2 contamination of environmental surfaces and air by collecting air and swabbing environmental surfaces among 39 COVID-19 cases in Guangzhou, China. We found that 20 specimens were tested positive from 9 COVID-19 cases. All positive specimens were collected within 3 days after diagnosis, and 10 were found in toilet. Air specimens in room and car were all negative. SARS-CoV-2 was found on environmental surfaces especially in toilet, and may survive for several days. We provided evidence of potential for SARS-CoV-2 transmission through contamination of environmental surfaces. |
| Quote: | Introduction
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has precipitated a global crisis, and it has resulted in 5,404,512 confirmed cases including with 343,514 deaths globally as of May 26, 2020 [1]. Reported transmission modes of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among humans were mainly through respiratory droplets produced by infected cases with sneezes or coughs [2]. People may be infected by inhalation of virus laden liquid droplets, and infection is more likely when someone are in close contact with COVID-19 cases [2–4]. However, the importance of indirect contact transmission, such as environmental contamination, is uncertain [5–7]. Evidences suggested that environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be high, and it is supported by recent researches focused on environmental contamination from COVID-19 cases in hospital [5–9]. Hospitals have already perfect disinfection measures, and are less likely to appear super-spreaders compared with community and household [4,10–12]. However, the role of air and surface contamination in non-health care settings is still need to be explored. Therefore, it is important to understand the environmental contamination of infected cases by SARS-CoV-2 in non-health care settings, which is a vital aspect of controlling the spread of the epidemic.
To address this question, in this study, we sampled total of 641 surfaces environmental and air specimens among 39 cases in Guangzhou, China, to explore the surrounding environmental surfaces and air contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in non-health care settings.
Methods
Study design and setting
Based on COVID-19 case reports, environmental surfaces and air specimens were collected by Guangzhou CDC (GZCDC) from Feb 6 to Apr 10, 2020. The environmental surfaces specimens of COVID-19 cases sampled in home, hotel, public area, restaurant, marketplace, car and pet, which was associated with COVID-19 cases’ life trajectory before hospitalization. Air specimens of COVID-19 cases were also sampled in their room (home or hotel). All specimens were collected before disinfection. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this method of spray is only effective at contact spread.
https://www.investors.com/news/airline-stocks-united-airlines-earnings-q3-2020-ual-stock/?src=A00220&yptr=yahoo
"We carry at Delta over 1 million people a week and have had no documented transmission onboard any of our aircraft," Bastian said.
| Quote: | | They have strengthened mask requirements and taken extra cleaning precautions, like using fogging spray guns to disinfect flight cabins. Delta has blocked middle seats on flights. |
https://www.wdrb.com/news/national/delta-becomes-first-airline-to-install-hand-sanitizer-stations-on-planes/article_046d651a-eb0f-11ea-9376-e3903ab96595.html
Delta becomes first airline to install hand sanitizer stations on planes
| Quote: | (FOX BUSINESS) -- Delta Air Lines has begun installing hand sanitizer stations on board its planes, making it the first U.S. airline to do so.
The carrier announced its plan to add the sanitizer stations on Wednesday, noting it would begin installation with the Boeing 757-200 fleet on Friday. In the coming weeks, all its planes will be fully equipped with the foam hand sanitizer stations at the boarding door and in next to lavatories, a press release shared. Depending on the size of the plane, some flights may have “up to five hand sanitizer stations,” according to the release. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2020 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We know from previous published real world that on a plane with 6 infected not all wore masks 1-2 person got infected in 11 hour flight. and from bullet train before masks about 70,000 contact tracing 400-600 infected chances of infection sitting next to infected in average 2 hour ride 3.6%, in front of them the way you are breathing half of that. now we have a simulation wearing masks shows nearly impossible by air. But they did not test contact, but united sprays their planes with a contact coating that minimizes this for up to 30-90 days. So if you wash your hands your risk is so low flying on at least united and others I assue are doing some spraying on their planes too. .
below is up for peer review, not peer reviewed yet.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story?id=73616599
Risk of COVID-19 exposure on planes 'virtually nonexistent' when masked, study shows
It was conducted by the Department of Defense and United Airlines.
ByGio Benitez andSam Sweeney
| Quote: | United Airlines says the risk of COVID-19 exposure onboard its aircraft is "virtually non-existent" after a new study finds that when masks are worn there is only a 0.003% chance particles from a passenger can enter the passenger's breathing space who is sitting beside them.
The study, conducted by the Department of Defense in partnership with United Airlines, was published Thursday. They ran 300 tests in a little over six months with a mannequin on a United plane.
PHOTO: The U.S. Department of Defense published a study Wednesday on cabin airflow that found when a passenger is seated and wearing a mask, only 0.001% of infected air particles could enter their breathing zone.
The U.S. Department of Defense published a study Wednesday on cabin airflow that found when a passenger is seated and wearing a mask, only 0.001% of infected air particles could enter their breathing zone.
The mannequin was equipped with an aerosol generator that allowed technicians to reproduce breathing and coughing. Each test released 180 million particles - equivalent to the number of particles that would be produced by thousands of coughs. They studied the way the mannequin's particles moved inside the cabin with a mask on and off.
The tests assumed the flight was completely full with technicians placing sensors in seats, galleys, and the jet bridge to represent other passengers on the plane.
MORE: US airline launches first COVID-19 testing program of its kind
"99.99% of those particles left the interior of the aircraft within six minutes," United Airlines Chief Communication Officer Josh Earnest told ABC News. "It indicates that being on board an aircraft is the safest indoor public space, because of the unique configuration inside an aircraft that includes aggressive ventilation, lots of airflow."
In late September, major U.S. airline CEOs said their employees were reporting lower rates of COVID-19 infection than the general public.
MORE: US airline employees report lower rate of COVID-19 infection than public, CEOs say
"At United, but also at our large competitors, our flight attendants have lower COVID infection rates than the general population, which is one of multiple data points that speaks to the safety on board airplanes," United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said during a Politico event.
Last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) released new research, saying the risk of contracting the virus on a plane appears to be "in the same category as being struck by lightning."
PHOTO: The U.S. Department of Defense published a study Wednesday on cabin airflow that found when a passenger is seated and wearing a mask, only 0.001% of infected air particles could enter their breathing zone.
The U.S. Department of Defense published a study Wednesday on cabin airflow that found when a passenger is seated and wearing a mask, only 0.001% of infected air particles could enter their breathing zone.
Among 1.2 billion travelers, IATA found only 44 published cases of potential inflight transmission. Most of those 44 cases occurred in the early days of the pandemic when masks were not required.
Air travel is still down around 70 percent compared to last year, but there has been an uptick since the spring. Earlier this week the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screened nearly a million people at U.S. airports - the agency's highest number since mid-March.
"We're seeing recovery, but we have a long way to go," Earnest said. "And even with all of this promising information about the safety of air travel and some of the advances that we're making in terms of implementing a testing regimen - we recognize we're not going to be anywhere close to back to normal until we have a vaccine that's been widely distributed and administered." |
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/coughing-mannequins-put-to-work-as-boeing-united-airlines-try-to-figure-out-how-covid-moves-through-planes
Coughing mannequins put to work as Boeing, United Airlines try to figure out how COVID moves through planes
| Quote: | For the past four months, United Airlines Holdings Inc. and Boeing Co. have been flying around jetliners loaded with mannequins, aerosol sprays, sensors and scientists in an effort to understand how contaminated air moves through passenger planes.
The research is just one small part of a sweeping global campaign to figure out the threats posed by the coronavirus. But for the airline industry, the results could help determine how quickly carriers bounce back from the edge of disaster after the pandemic made people afraid to get on a plane. U.S. demand for flights remains at less than a third of 2019 levels, based on airport security screening data.
The U.S. military initiated the $1 million study when the spread of COVID-19 raised concerns about infection risks for troops transported on passenger jets. Companies including United, Boeing and Zeteo Tech LLC, a Maryland-based biodefense and medical device maker, are contributing equipment and expertise. If the findings can show how likely it is for a passenger to be infected by breathing the air on a plane, “it’ll probably drive some policy decisions,” said Mike McLoughlin, Zeteo’s vice president of research.
Advertisement
Article content continued
Airlines have sought to reassure the public that flying is safe by implementing an array of onboard cleaning and disinfecting procedures, requiring face masks in the cabin and improving ventilation and filtration systems. But they haven’t been able to show what, precisely, are the chances of infection if that person sitting next to you or across the aisle breaks out into a virus-laden cough.
To collect the data, researchers placed mannequins with human-like heads in various seats throughout seven models of Boeing and Airbus SE jets, then made them cough. Or rather, they simulated a human cough, and how aerosolized particles are expelled and disseminated through the air on the plane, McLoughlin said.
Aerosol particles will behave differently under different cabin scenarios, said Byron Jones, an engineering professor at Kansas State University who studies airline cabin air and was not involved in the project. Gas and particles in a cabin become “a witches’ cauldron,” he said, based on air flows, particulate sizes and other factors. “It just swirls and churns and twists. It’s very chaotic,” he said. But that churning isn’t necessarily a bad thing: “That’s what you want to see in a general ventilation (system).”
MORE ON THIS TOPIC
The Seattle innovation company has developed a technology that will literally shield travellers from the virus as they board airplanes for the first time.
Flying during COVID-19: How a 3D-printed device could shield travellers on board airplanes
While they are calling on the government to ease restrictions, he said they still expect it will be a long way before things return to normal.
'We can’t wait years': Airlines tell MPs they want COVID-19 rules eased so their business can restart
A traveller wears a face covering as he walks through a mostly empty terminal at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, May 5, 2020 in Arlington, Virginia.
Flying in the post-lockdown world: What might that look like?
Advertisement
Article content continued
Researchers evaluated how factors such as circulation, the exchange rate of cabin air, filtration and forward-facing seats affected the flow of aerosolized particles through the cabin, and who would be most exposed in their proximity to a cougher. Particle sizes and various locations throughout the cabin were considered. Tests were repeated with the dummies wearing disposable surgical masks.
The tests were conducted during 30 hours in flight and 24 hours on the ground from May 5 through August. Analysis of the data and peer reviews are expected to be completed this month with a final report issued in October.
Boeing declined to comment on the results they’ve seen so far. In a statement, the company said it’s approaching the question of virus spread “from an engineering perspective by conducting data-driven analysis studies, simulations, modeling and live testing, which will help us all better understand the transmission and risks of COVID-19.”
The project is funded and led in part by the U.S. Transportation Command, based at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, which buys airline seats and charter flights to transport U.S. troops and their families around the world. The Command sees the study as critical to safely mobilizing troops, said Lieutenant Colonel Ellis Gales Jr., a spokesman. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency helped connect the Transportation Command with United and Boeing.
If the analysis shows infection risks through the air can be controlled on a plane, the industry might be able to use those results to help persuade the public to start flying again even before a vaccination for COVID-19 might be widely available.”Throughout the pandemic, our top priority has been the health and safety of our customers and crew,” Toby Enqvist, United’s chief customer officer, said in an email. Enqvist said he’s encouraged by the early results he’s seen, but did not provide specifics.
“Everybody is keen to get the results out as quickly as possible but we want to make sure that when we release those results we’re painting an accurate picture,” McLoughlin said. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
if airborne there is no way this number would be this low. after all when you enter a plane you are breathing and exhaling.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/risk-inflight-spread-covid-19-133425365.html
Risk of inflight spread of COVID-19 'very low', not zero: WHO
| Quote: |
GENEVA (Reuters) - The risk of COVID-19 spreading on flights appears "very low" but cannot be ruled out, despite studies showing only a small number of cases, the World Health Organization (WHO) said.
"In-flight transmission is possible but the risk appears to be very low, given the volume of travellers and the small number of case reports. The fact that transmission is not widely documented in the published literature does not, however, mean it does not happen," the WHO said in a statement to Reuters.
The characterisation of the risk echoes the findings of a U.S. Defense Department study that last week described the probability of catching the disease on airliners as "very low".
Some airlines have however used more robust language to describe the risk of onboard transmission.
Southwest Airlines and United Airlines have both said that recent studies had found that the risk was "virtually non-existent".
Southwest, one of a handful of airlines currently keeping middle seats free, said on Thursday that in light of the research it would lift the block on middle seats.
Global airlines body IATA said on Oct. 8 that only 44 potential cases of flight-related transmission had been identified among 1.2 billion travellers this year, or one in every 27 million passengers.
But the presentation was later challenged by one of the scientists whose research it drew upon. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peer reviewed the guard always had a mask on. but you see that they have to make contact with the food trays and the bedding.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6943e1.htm?s_cid=mm6943e1_w
COVID-19 in a Correctional Facility Employee Following Multiple Brief Exposures to Persons with COVID-19 — Vermont, July–August 2020
| Quote: | On August 11, 2020, a confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a male correctional facility employee (correctional officer) aged 20 years was reported to the Vermont Department of Health (VDH). On July 28, the correctional officer had multiple brief encounters with six incarcerated or detained persons (IDPs)* while their SARS-CoV-2 test results were pending. The six asymptomatic IDPs arrived from an out-of-state correctional facility on July 28 and were housed in a quarantine unit. In accordance with Vermont Department of Corrections (VDOC) policy for state prisons, nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from the six IDPs on their arrival date and tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, at the Vermont Department of Health Laboratory, using real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). On July 29, all six IDPs received positive test results. VDH and VDOC conducted a contact tracing investigation† and used video surveillance footage to determine that the correctional officer did not meet VDH’s definition of close contact (i.e., being within 6 feet of infectious persons for ≥15 consecutive minutes)§,¶; therefore, he continued to work. At the end of his shift on August 4, he experienced loss of smell and taste, myalgia, runny nose, cough, shortness of breath, headache, loss of appetite, and gastrointestinal symptoms; beginning August 5, he stayed home from work. An August 5 nasopharyngeal specimen tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR at a commercial laboratory was reported as positive on August 11; the correctional officer identified two contacts outside of work, neither of whom developed COVID-19. On July 28, seven days preceding his illness onset, the correctional officer had multiple brief exposures to six IDPs who later tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; available data suggests that at least one of the asymptomatic IDPs transmitted SARS-CoV-2 during these brief encounters.
Subsequently, VDH and facility staff members reviewed July 28 quarantine unit video surveillance footage and standard correctional officer shift duty responsibilities to approximate the frequency and duration of interactions between the correctional officer and infectious IDPs during the work shift (Table). Although the correctional officer never spent 15 consecutive minutes within 6 feet of an IDP with COVID-19, numerous brief (approximately 1-minute) encounters that cumulatively exceeded 15 minutes did occur. During his 8-hour shift on July 28, the correctional officer was within 6 feet of an infectious IDP an estimated 22 times while the cell door was open, for an estimated 17 total minutes of cumulative exposure. IDPs wore microfiber cloth masks during most interactions with the correctional officer that occurred outside a cell; however, during several encounters in a cell doorway or in the recreation room, IDPs did not wear masks. During all interactions, the correctional officer wore a microfiber cloth mask, gown, and eye protection (goggles). The correctional officer wore gloves during most interactions. The correctional officer’s cumulative exposure time is an informed estimate; additional interactions might have occurred that were missed during this investigation.
The correctional officer reported no other known close contact exposures to persons with COVID-19 outside work and no travel outside Vermont during the 14 days preceding illness onset. COVID-19 cumulative incidence in his county of residence and where the correctional facility is located was relatively low at the time of the investigation (20 cases per 100,000 persons), suggesting that his most likely exposures occurred in the correctional facility through multiple brief encounters (not initially considered to meet VDH’s definition of close contact exposure) with IDPs who later received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
Among seven employees with exposures to the infectious IDPs that did meet the VDH close contact definition, one person received a positive test result. Among thirteen employees (including the correctional officer) with exposures to the infectious IDPs that did not meet the VDH close contact definition during contact tracing, only the correctional officer received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.
Data are limited to precisely define “close contact”; however, 15 minutes of close exposure is used as an operational definition for contact tracing investigations in many settings. Additional factors to consider when defining close contact include proximity, the duration of exposure, whether the infected person has symptoms, whether the infected person was likely to generate respiratory aerosols, and environmental factors such as adequacy of ventilation and crowding. A primary purpose of contact tracing is to identify persons with higher risk exposures and therefore higher probabilities of developing infection, which can guide decisions on quarantining and work restrictions. Although the initial assessment did not suggest that the officer had close contact exposures, detailed review of video footage identified that the cumulative duration of exposures exceeded 15 minutes. In correctional settings, frequent encounters of ≤6 feet between IDPs and facility staff members are necessary; public health officials should consider transmission-risk implications of cumulative exposure time within such settings. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2020 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
though to me this seems obvious if sitting on a seat on a plane your airflow you project is forward towards the person sitting in front of you. Thus the people sitting in front of you if you are infected if airborne would definitely have a higher infection rated than the people sitting next to you. plus the way a plane ventilation words it would also propel it directly at you as it rises that way.
But we see that in the study of infected people in average 2 hour were the persons next to them at a low rate of 3.6% and the person in front of them the direction the particles are going is half of that.
Supercomputer Shows Humidity's Effect on COVID-19
https://youtu.be/frbsdgGMHew
[youtube]frbsdgGMHew[/youtube]
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2020 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
a note I have been adding H2O2 to my mouthwash from the beginning. and I keep some in the car trunk. Note the below is not proven in human testing, just testing via the mouthwashes on a virus.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mouthwashes-could-inactivate-human-coronaviruses-that-cause-the-common-cold-232959144.html
Mouthwash could 'inactivate' human coronaviruses that cause infections like the common cold
| Quote: | Mouthwashes may help lower the transmission and spread of the coronavirus, according to a new study.
In the study, published in the Journal of Medical Virology, researchers investigated over-the-counter mouthwashes and nasal rinses commonly found in drug stores and supermarkets, since both types of products “directly impact the major sites of reception and transmission of human coronaviruses (HCoV)” — namely, the mouth and nose — and “may provide an additional level of protection against the virus.”
To find out whether mouthwashes and nasal rinses would be effective against the coronavirus, the researchers tested a common human coronavirus known as 229e — one of several strains that typically only cause mild infections like the common cold, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — not SARS‐CoV‐2, which is the virus associated with COVID‐19.
Close-up Of Person's Hand Pouring Liquid In Container
The Listerine mouthwashes, as well as Crest Pro-Health, Equate Antiseptic mouthwash, and CVS Antiseptic mouthwash, were “highly effective at inactivating infectious virus with greater than 99.9 percent,” according to the researchers in the study — even after only swishing around the mouthwash for 30 seconds. (Photo: Getty Images)
More
But, as the lead author of the study, Craig Meyers, tells Yahoo Life, all coronaviruses have something in common: “They have a membrane,” says Meyers, a distinguished professor of microbiology and immunology at Penn State.
“With membrane viruses, all you have to do is break that membrane and they’re inactivated,” Meyers explains. “It’s very difficult to work with the actual COVID-19 virus. But the membranes [in coronaviruses in general] are pretty much the same.”
The researchers tested whether certain nasal rinses, such as Neti Pot with a salt/baking soda solution and a diluted 1 percent Johnson’s Baby Shampoo solution and mouthwashes, including Listerine Antiseptic, Listerine Ultra, Orajel Antiseptic Rinse, and Crest Pro‐Health, could inactivate high concentrations of human coronaviruses after using the products for 30 seconds, one minute, and two minutes.
The results: The Listerine mouthwashes, as well as Crest Pro-Health, Equate Antiseptic mouthwash, and CVS Antiseptic mouthwash, were “highly effective at inactivating infectious virus with greater than 99.9 percent,” according to the researchers in the study — even after only swishing around the mouthwash for 30 seconds.
The researchers also found that the mouthwash products with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as their active ingredient — such as CVS’ Peroxide Sore Mouth and Orajel Antiseptic Rinse — “all demonstrated similar abilities to inactivate” the human coronavirus 229e by 90 to 99 percent.
With nasal rinses, the researchers found that using a 1 percent baby shampoo solution for either one to two minutes inactivated more than 99 percent of the virus in both cases. But the over‐the‐counter saline nasal rinse, Neti Pot, had “no effect on the infectivity of the virus at any incubation time tested.”
The researchers concluded that these commonly-available healthcare products have “significant virucidal properties with respect to” human coronaviruses.
However, more research is needed — namely, clinical trials to pinpoint which ingredient or combination of ingredients is breaking the virus’ membrane. Meyers tells Yahoo Life that he hopes to get funding to test which ingredients are the most effective.
This isn’t the first study to look at mouthwash products as a way to reduce viral load. In a July 2020 study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, researchers tested eight different mouthwashes from pharmacies and drugstores in Germany and found that they all reduced the viral load — in fact, three mouthwashes “reduced it to such an extent that no virus could be detected after an exposure time of 30 seconds,” according to ScienceDaily.
But the German study’s authors emphasize that this doesn’t mean mouthwashes alone can treat COVID-19. "Gargling with a mouthwash cannot inhibit the production of viruses in the cells," lead author of the study Toni Meister of Ruhr University Bochum in Germany, told ScienceDaily, "but could reduce the viral load in the short term where the greatest potential for infection comes from, namely in the oral cavity and throat — and this could be useful in certain situations, such as at the dentist or during the medical care of Covid-19 patients."
Meyers agrees, saying: “You’ve got to be wearing your mask and social distancing. To me, [mouthwash] is an extra help.”
Nicholas Rowan, MD, an assistant professor of otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins Medicine, tells Yahoo Life that the use of mouthwashes and nasal rinses are a “really promising area” and are “very exciting therapies, logical, and likely very low risk.”
And, like Meyers, Rowan says that more research is needed. “There is a lot of credence to these claims,” he tells Yahoo Life. “However, the most significant barrier of these medications is lack of proven efficacy, and navigating the appropriate clinical trials before providing these types of medications to patients.”
Rowan adds: “It’s hard to say that these therapies are really incredibly effective or have a place in the treatment paradigm for COVID-19 just yet. It’s likely an option for patients to use, but overall, there is not great evidence that current, available options have a real benefit. Fortunately, these over-the-counter medications are likely low risk.” |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
From Bill Gates, who has insight into pandemics.
| Quote: | By LISA M. KRIEGER | lkrieger@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: October 21, 2020 at 4:25 p.m. | UPDATED: October 22, 2020 at 3:39 a.m.
Five years ago, Bill Gates predicted that a pandemic would spread very quickly, shake the global economy and transform daily life.
On Wednesday, Dr. Lloyd Minor, Dean of Stanford University School of Medicine, posed questions to the Microsoft co-founder and co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation about the strategies and innovations needed to end the COVID-19 pandemic that, as Gates forecast, is now sweeping the world.
Q: Where did we go wrong?
A: “There are some things we didn’t do before the epidemic hit. And then there’s the things that we didn’t do once the epidemic hit.
We can definitely say in those early days, getting the PCR machines and the commercial sector up and running, and getting them to every community with results coming back in less than 24 hours — the way that was done in South Korea, Australia, Taiwan — was a model that sadly, the U.S. did not use.
Usually, you’d expect the worst to be the ‘ground zero’ country — in this case, China, then the next wave, which was all in Asia, and then in Europe, and then finally, the U.S. We had all this community spread.
With a travel ban, where you actually force people to come back from China, you have to have a way to be able to either just assume they’re infected and quarantine them, or test them. And then if they test positive, to have that enforced quarantine.
We actually seeded a lot of infection by saying, ‘Okay, everybody, residents and citizens come back (and not testing or quarantining).’
Diagnostics and quarantine — we knew those were important. We didn’t do a good job executing on them.”
Q: How do we rebuild the public health infrastructure in our country?
A: “The CDC is the best in the world. Everyone in the world looks to the CDC, whether it’s how you message during a pandemic, how you do the epidemiology or how you track the data. In some respects, we have under invested in practicing those skill sets, making sure the database system really would pull the information together in a rich way.
I’d say overwhelmingly, we didn’t take advantage of that expertise, because we didn’t take the spokespeople in the CDC and give them the opportunity to be the voice. Now, to some degree, Dr. Fauci — who’s fantastic — once in awhile he is allowed to go out and talk and so he’s carried out the public health mission.
But by not having a consistent message, by not having the federal government say, early on, ‘We need to intervene aggressively,’ we missed what capacity there is at the CDC to minimize the epidemic.
The U.S. also (cut) the people who would have bought the materials and who would have gathered the information.
Q: What’s the course of economic recovery going to be?
A: “One thing I underestimated was how quickly people’s behavior would change. And that when death stalks the land and you’ve got thousands of deaths going on a day, I didn’t realize how much people would say: ‘Let’s not go into work.’ ” (In a 2015 talk), I talked about $3 trillion economic costs. It’ll easily get to $10 trillion, perhaps even $15 trillion, overall.
Q: How are we going to democratize the distribution of vaccines, both within our country and then in the world?
A: “Let me talk a tiny bit about the vaccine business. It is largely six or seven Western companies that invent the novel vaccines. And then as they get out there in developing countries, the manufacturers — mostly in India, but Indonesia, Brazil, a few other places — they’ll make a different version of the vaccine and sell it at a much lower price.
“This is not a case where you want to use just a market-based approach, charging the highest price you can for the vaccine and getting it to just the richest patient for the richest countries.
We have a lot of vaccines underway. The ones that really count are the ones that are going to go through a ‘gold standard’ regulator, which would be the U.S. FDA or the European regulator. All the countries in the world look at those kind of blessings before they say, ‘Okay, this is quite safe.’
We’ve got six vaccines that U.S. and other monies is funding into Phase Three trials. And potentially, we’re going to have an Emergency Use license for two or three of them coming in the first half of next year.”
Q: How much capacity do these manufacturers have?
A: We have the capacity to go way faster than for any vaccine in history.
This is the first time ever in history (that) we’re going to have a vaccine invented by a Western company, such as Johnson & Johnson, partnering with the Indian company Biological E, which has an even bigger factory and will have the right to manufacture. Likewise, the British-Swedish company AstraZeneca has a vaccine licensing agreement with Serum Institute of India.
So overall, thank goodness, our ability to create vaccines, and the many different approaches we can use, gives us the high likelihood of one, or multiples of them, working.”
Q: What is your assessment of the therapeutic landscape today?
A: “The thing that’s most promising in this whole space is the monoclonal antibodies. If you catch somebody early — someone who just tested positive — and then give these antibodies either as an infusion or a couple of shots, you probably will be able to reduce the death rate 70% or 80%.
There’s a lot of great work going on in this space. Particularly if it’s a low dose intervention, that really is a big deal in reducing overall deaths.”
Q: What are the prospects for global screening of the emergence of another new virus?
A: “We always have to be serious about public health in a global sense and surveillance for ‘the next one,’ because we don’t know where it will emerge.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2020 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463918305911
Impact of a hygiene intervention on virus spread in an office building
| Quote: | Abstract
Viral illnesses have a significant direct and indirect impact on the workplace that burdens employers with increased healthcare costs, low productivity, and absenteeism. Workers' direct contact with each other and contaminated surfaces contributes to the spread of viruses at work. This study quantifies the impact of an office wellness intervention (OWI) to reduce viral load in the workplace. The OWI includes the use of a spray disinfectant on high-touch surfaces and providing workers with alcohol-based hand sanitizer gel and hand sanitizing wipes along with user instructions. Viral transmission was monitored by applying an MS2 phage tracer to a door handle and the hand of a single volunteer participant. At the same time, a placebo inoculum was applied to the hands of four additional volunteers. The purpose was to evaluate the concentration of viruses on workers' hands and office surfaces before and after the OWI. Results showed that the OWI significantly reduced viable phage concentrations per surface area on participants' hands, shared fomites, and personal fomites (p = 0.0001) with an 85.4% average reduction. Reduction of virus concentrations on hands and fomites is expected to subsequently minimize the risk of infections from common enteric and respiratory pathogens. The surfaces identified as most contaminated were the refrigerator, drawer handles and sink faucets in the break room, along with pushbar on the main exit of the building, and the soap dispensers in the women's restroom. A comparison of contamination in different locations within the office showed that the break room and women's restrooms were the sites with the highest tracer counts. Results of this study can be used to inform quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) models aimed at defining the relationship between surface contamination, pathogen exposure and the probability of disease that contributes to high healthcare costs, absenteeism, presenteeism, and loss of productivity in the workplace.
|
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463918305911
Impact of a hygiene intervention on virus spread in an office building
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455933/
Modeling of Human Viruses on Hands and Risk of Infection in an Office Workplace Using Micro-Activity Data
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1517/5917611
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15459624.2019.1691219?src=recsys
Assessing virus infection probability in an office setting using stochastic simulation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26066784/
The healthy workplace project: Reduced viral exposure in an office setting
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32574546/
Evaluating a transfer gradient assumption in a fomite-mediated microbial transmission model using an experimental and Bayesian approach
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329918/
Bacterial transfer to fingertips during sequential surface contacts with and without gloves
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12234341/
Comparative surface-to-hand and fingertip-to-mouth transfer efficiency of gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, and phage
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455933/
Modeling of Human Viruses on Hands and Risk of Infection in an Office Workplace Using Micro-Activity Data
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
