Many people still seem to think that it is transmitted on surfaces. Not instead of airborne, but additionally.
And I don't mean experts or lawmakers (that I know of), I mean in my area of the US, grocery stores and gas stations (sometimes) have signs saying put a plastic bag or gloves on your hands.
I don't think it's been obvious at all, at least as evidenced by preventive measures people take.
If it's airborne, then "social distancing" (especially at 6 feet), hand washing, and cloth face coverings are not sufficient to prevent transmission. If it's droplet transmitted, then those all work quite well.
I still see hotels, airlines, restaurants, etc pushing prevention measures that don't account for airborne transmission. So, while many (including myself) may feel there is no substantial debate to be had here, I'm not sure that the community at large has caught up.
Yeah, the CDC has acknowledged the surface thing [1], but sadly people are still operating on last year's knowledge and stil think disinfection is super important. Meanwhile despite new knowledge that Covid spreads in the air (not just through visible spit)[2], things like good ventilation (e.g. keeping windows open) hasn't really been pushed to people's heads. Maybe it's the failure of media?
Again, your comment is riddled with errors, and you draw conclusions from data that cannot be drawn. I have directly addressed your comments and the thrust of your argument, but I cannot address each and every error and misstatement. So I just choose some of the most egregious and deconstruct them as examples.
Much of what you say simply does not comport with reality. Anyone who's been to a grocery store in a lock down state can tell you that the stores became much sparser. A big part of this is because most people simply go less frequently. Also people don't tend to linger. In general, people make adjustments that all but completely mitigate the imaginary issues you're raising. You can rail on about a bunch of hypotheticals, but that doesn't overturn observable reality.
Likewise, all of your assertions about gloves and the virus living on surfaces, etc. It has not been proven that lingering detectable particles on items are a significant mode of transmission vs direct contact with people. And, in fact, super spreader events are linked directly to people in close proximity: funerals, church services, sporting events, parties and social gatherings, etc. Actively respired particles while in close proximity to other humans transmits the virus. Full stop. It is absolutely ludicrous to assert otherwise.
You also cannot draw the conclusion that masks are completely ineffective due purely to micron size. No, they are not a perfect shield, but they can reduce transmission in that clearly not every particle will fit neatly through a space and make a beeline from one person's mucous membranes to another's. This is just silliness. And, when all parties wear masks, it reduces viral contact even further. Reduction of contact with viable virus particles reduces transmission. Clearly.
These are truly facile statements you are making, and it's asinine to expect that someone will word for word deconstruct them. You take a bunch of random facts, misinterpret them, and suggest that you've made some sort of argument. You then go on to make sweeping statements without any basis in fact.
The other technique you are using is to cherry pick information and draw conclusions without regard to the factors that plainly contradict your points, and you equate correlation with causation. Some of those points I made to you in my last comment, but you chose not to address them.
For instance, I addressed your assertion that reopening states haven't experienced spikes by pointing out that there hasn't been enough time to measure. Additionally, many people are still under voluntary lockdown and most states are only partially reopened in any case. Crickets.
But, then you link out to some NBC news report that actually shows spikes in some states since their re-opening, directly contradicting your claims and supporting my assertion that we have not had enough time to draw conclusions. Did you think I wouldn't read it?
The info from China shows that it spreads primarily through inhaling droplets, not through touching surfaces.
Which is why I expect the epidemic to be way way worse outside of Asia, since in the West people don't wear masks and are actively discouraged by the health authorities.
There's actually a remarkable lack of evidence for people getting it by touching surfaces too. That doesn't mean it literally never happens but it seems to be a small fraction of cases compared to the flu.
On masks as a good idea, I am still a little concerned with touch transmission. I see people without gloves touching their mask. This is totally contaminating the mask.
I would really like a settled question on whether mail and groceries are safe to touch. There was a study that came out saying the virus could exist on different surfaces for different periods of time. News reported last week that CDC update the website that indicated that the study was flawed. Soon after the CDC added clarification which still leaves the conclusion open. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0522-cdc-updates-co...
People touch the surface, then their faces. Inhaled aerosols are not a significant component of how this virus spreads. Touched surfaces with viral films, and inhaled droplets, are.
Yeah, but SARS-CoV-2 is spread via aerosols, as are influenza viruses [1].
Not to say it's not a good idea to disinfect your shopping cart handle - and the downturn of the last years in non-covid infectious diseases as part of hygienic measures being made mandatory or at the very least somewhat followed proves that -, but it won't help much against covid.
As this and all other reports indicate, it can become aerosolized in certain invasive hospital procedures, which involve sticking stuff into people's lungs. This holds for a lot of diseases, we've known that for decades, and it doesn't have anything to do with how spread occurs in public.
One study of one family does not a public health policy make, was my point.
Again, we know that this virus can be transmitted to surfaces by the infected. We know that it lives there for days and can be cultured. We do not know the fraction of real-world infections that take a fomite route vs. inhalation, and this study seems like evidence (albeit somewhat limited) that the number is very low.
No one should be interpreting this as "you can't get sick from touching things". We don't know that. Even given this one study, that's not an appropriately conservative way to understand the disease, given the known stakes.
That quote about shopping being safe doesn't seem to have much support, and frankly sounds very dangerous if taken too literally.
In fact existing outbreaks COVID-19 are notably NOT solely due to "people being closer together over a longer period of time". Cases of completely untraced community infection are everywhere with this disease.
> “To actually 'get' the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand, immediately touches a door knob and then straight after that another person grasps the handle and goes on to touches their face.”
This is just simply not true. Fomite transmissibility was demonstrated back in January. I think what he's trying to say is that the chances of static infectious surfaces seem low and that close proximity to an infected person is still the most common vector. But the way you quoted it makes it sounds like you can't get it from a surface, and we know that's not true.
Seriously, wash your hands, folks. And beware of selectively quoted articles telling you not to take obvious mitigation steps.
I saw videos of some countries driving trucks doing a sort of fogging and spraying of whole outdoor areas. Not unlike in the article here.
It seemed like a strange practice to combat a virus to me but when I raised the question I was told various things that I found pretty unconvincing.
I'm glad to see some actual work identifying risks is out there now.
I suspect surfaces, like other practices are focused on, because we can easily deal with them. Anyone can disinfect a surface. The air, not as easy unfortunately.
Nobody is sure how it transmits. But if it's airborne, moving air and sunlight are certainly going to make gathering at a beach much safer than gathering inside an office building.
Handwashing stations and ULPA filters in HVAC systems set to renew the air x times more often I think will end up being the long term solution, along with a persistent disease which is just a part of life. The masks seem to just be a joke made up by people wanting to do something.
If you actually read that article it says surface transmission is a _minor_ risk and is possible. It's not zero risk. It's also difficult to prove it is or is not happening. Omicron is thought to replicate faster, so a smaller amount of it could be a larger risk, including on surfaces. Has anyone studied Omicron surface viability specifically? At the very least, if someone wipes their nose with their hand, then touches a door handle and then another person soon after touches the door handle and then wipes their nose with their hand that is a lot like taking a swab from one person and putting it in the nose of another. So surface transmission seems obviously possible (and there are a couple known possible examples of it in the article), but doesn't seem to happen as often as aerosol transmission, but it is also hard to measure in the wild so it is still something of an unknown. Lots of people have stopped washing groceries and are doing ok. Lots of people still are using Purell very often also. Keeping the virus off your hands so you don't introduce it to your mouth or nose seems like a good idea. Trying to sanitize objects is recommended in the article, but only after other countermeasures and only if you have the time. Sanitizing your hands accomplishes the same thing as sanitizing surfaces -if- you always remember to sanitize your hands before touching your nose or mouth after touching something that might be contaminated. Viruses degrade with time on surfaces at varying rates, so infectiousness drops with time. The article says we don't actually know what that decay over time is in the wild. It also says there have been no conclusive cases of surface transmission, but that's only because it is hard to observe in the wild. How do you tell if someone breathed it or touched it? So "no evidence" here means "we don't know and can't figure out how to do a good experiment since we can't intentionally infect people". Aerosols are definitely the higher risk, but you can't rule out some surface transmission. Risk likely varies by surface location as well. A ceiling is low risk, opening your car trunk is probably low risk, a public bathroom door handle is higher risk.
And I don't mean experts or lawmakers (that I know of), I mean in my area of the US, grocery stores and gas stations (sometimes) have signs saying put a plastic bag or gloves on your hands.
reply