HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » "Scientists Say WHO Ignor...

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 07:22 PM

"Scientists Say WHO Ignores The Risk That Coronavirus Floats In Air As Aerosol"

Last edited Wed Jul 8, 2020, 07:42 PM - Edit history (2)

- Los Angeles Times, by Richard Read, July 4, 2020. - Excerpts, Ed.:

Six months into a pandemic that has killed over half a million people, more than 200 scientists from around the world are challenging the official view of how the coronavirus spreads. The World Health Organization and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain that you have to worry about only two types of transmission: inhaling respiratory droplets from an infected person in your immediate vicinity or - less common - touching a contaminated surface and then your eyes, nose or mouth. But other experts contend that the guidance ignores growing evidence that a third pathway also plays a significant role in contagion. They say multiple studies demonstrate that particles known as aerosols — microscopic versions of standard respiratory droplets — can hang in the air for long periods and float dozens of feet, making poorly ventilated rooms, buses and other confined spaces dangerous, even when people stay six feet from one another.

“We are 100% sure about this,” said Lidia Morawska, professor of atmospheric sciences and environmental engineering in Australia. In an open letter to the WHO she accuses the UN agency of failing to issue appropriate warnings about the risk. The letter, signed by 239 researchers from 32 countries is set to be published next week in a scientific journal.

In interviews, experts said that aerosol transmission appears to be the only way to explain several “super-spreading” events, including the infection of diners at a restaurant in China who sat at separate tables and of choir members in Washington state who took precautions during a rehearsal. WHO officials have acknowledged that the virus can be transmitted through aerosols but say that occurs only during medical procedures such as intubation that can spew large quantities of the microscopic particles. CDC officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Dr. Benedetta Allegranzi, a top WHO expert on infection prevention and control, said in responses to questions from The Times that Morawska and her group presented theories based on laboratory experiments rather than evidence from the field.. She added that such transmission “would have resulted in many more cases and even more rapid spread of the virus.”

At first, the WHO and CDC said masks were overkill for ordinary people and should be conserved for health workers. Later, the CDC recommended masks only for people with COVID-19 symptoms. Then in April, after it became clear that people without symptoms could also spread the virus, the CDC suggested masks for everybody when physical distancing was difficult, a position the WHO eventually adopted..Proponents of aerosol transmission said masks worn correctly would help prevent the escape of exhaled aerosols as well as inhalation of the microscopic particles. But they said the spread could also be reduced by improving ventilation and zapping indoor air with ultraviolet light in ceiling units.

In Mid-March, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that when the virus was suspended in mist under laboratory conditions it remained “viable and infectious” for three hours, which researchers said equated to as much as half an hour in real-world conditions. It had already been established that some people, known as “super spreaders,” happen to be especially good at exhaling fine material, producing 1,000 times more than others. A recent study found coronavirus RNA in hallways near hospital rooms of COVID-19 patients. Another raised concerns that aerosols laden with the virus were shed by floor-cleaning equipment and by health workers removing personal protective gear. Researchers in China found evidence of aerosols containing the coronavirus in two Wuhan hospitals...

Read More, https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/scientists-say-who-ignores-the-risk-that-coronavirus-floats-in-air-as-aerosol/ar-BB16krEu

26 replies, 2284 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 26 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Scientists Say WHO Ignores The Risk That Coronavirus Floats In Air As Aerosol" (Original post)
appalachiablue Jul 4 OP
soothsayer Jul 4 #1
appalachiablue Jul 4 #3
soothsayer Jul 4 #4
Buckeye_Democrat Jul 4 #5
NNadir Jul 5 #19
Buckeye_Democrat Jul 4 #2
brush Jul 4 #7
Igel Jul 4 #8
Chemisse Jul 4 #6
Igel Jul 4 #9
BigmanPigman Jul 4 #10
Buckeye_Democrat Jul 4 #11
BigmanPigman Jul 4 #12
Buckeye_Democrat Jul 4 #13
BigmanPigman Jul 4 #15
Buckeye_Democrat Jul 5 #16
BigmanPigman Jul 5 #17
CountAllVotes Jul 6 #25
Chemisse Jul 4 #14
Nitram Jul 5 #20
CountAllVotes Jul 6 #24
Buckeye_Democrat Jul 6 #26
NNadir Jul 5 #18
appalachiablue Jul 5 #21
NNadir Jul 5 #22
appalachiablue Jul 5 #23

Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 07:37 PM

1. Makes sense but why is WHO ignoring it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 08:04 PM

3. Perhaps they actually think only two pathways are significant,

and proving aerosol particles are a major source of contamination is difficult, as an expert states at the end of the article:

~ "They said that the coronavirus is less contagious through the air than measles but that the risk of transmission goes up the longer air remains stagnant and the longer people continue to breathe it. In interviews, they said WHO officials had unfairly set a higher bar for showing aerosol spread than was required for acceptance of the other two pathways.
“For them, droplets and touch are so obvious that they’re proven, but airborne is so outlandish that it needs a very high level of evidence,” Jimenez said. Proof would require exposing large numbers of healthy people to aerosols emitted by COVID-19 patients, a study that scientists said would be unethical.

- Donald Milton, a University of Maryland environmental health professor and an expert on aerosols who co-wrote the letter, said the average person breathes 10,000 liters of air each day.
~ "You only need one infectious dose of the coronavirus in 10,000 liters, and it can be very hard to find it and prove that it’s there, which is one of the problems we’ve had,” he said."
_______________________

And if this about aerosol spread is found to be true, it could mean the almost total shutdown of public life and society with lengthy quarantines. For how long until an effective therapy or vaccine is developed and distributed?

- In this recent Business Insider article below, it states how unlikely it is that malls, as Gov. Cuomo recently stated, can be appropriately fitted with specialized Merv (Hepa) filters to trap coronavirus particles. The writer claims it's because many buildings don't have the right infrastructure and systems to make the adaptation. I have no idea whether this info. is accurate or not.

*'Hepa Filter Mall Suggestion May Not Be Possible,' Business Insider, June 30, 2020.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cuomos-hepa-filter-mall-suggestion-may-not-be-possible-2020-6
https://democraticunderground.com/1017591158

> And think of the cost, time and effort it would take to refit, or rebuild schools, transportation systems, malls, stores, office buildings and many other public facilities with specialized HVAC, plumbing, filtration and other modifications for this deadly virus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 08:05 PM

4. Yeah that latter bit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 08:11 PM

5. I would be leery of air recirculating with HVAC systems...

... without really excellent filtration methods.

The aerosols have fewer virus particles in them, according to Dr. Bromage, but he never pretended that people couldn't get infected by them given enough exposure.

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/what-s-the-deal-with-masks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soothsayer (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 11:42 AM

19. You know, a perspective on aerosol transmission was published in Science recently.

I discussed it in the Science forum on this website: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2

The perspective therein to the article in one of the world's most prestigious science journals is here: Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (Kimberly A. Prather1, Chia C. Wang2,3, Robert T. Schooley4 Science 26 Jun 2020: Vol. 368, Issue 6498, pp. 1422-1424)

There are almost certainly tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of scientists who work for the World Health Organization. It is highly improbable that every scientist reading this perspective article ignored it.

Here's how science interfaces with policy intelligently, which obviously excludes policy in the US where policy is prevented from intelligent interaction with science: Many scientists publish papers, and high level scientists in an intelligently run policy organization - placed in that position by demonstration of competence - review the literature carefully.

This means that a few papers published by a subset of scientists, irrespective of their quality - which may be high - are not sufficient to immediately change policy, because decisions that may impact millions or even billions of people require careful consideration lest they do more harm that good, do not take place instanteously.

It takes some hubris I think for any scientist, or even a small group of scientists, to claim that all of the scientists in an international organization are ignoring their considerations. By what qualifications do any scientists claim that all scientists are ignoring any topic?

The perspective certainly raises questions, which is why I took the time to post it. However it is not immediately worthy of vast policy changes.

The most likely case is that the journalist publishing this news headline is clueless, and are putting words in the mouths of the scientists or taking them out of context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 07:42 PM

2. I've read papers from several epidemiologists...

... so it's not surprising to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 08:39 PM

7. Yes, right. Isn't that one of the reasons for social distancing...

so that the aerosolized particles fall to the ground in the distance between people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 09:05 PM

8. Quite the contrary.

The aerosolized particles are the ones that wouldn't fall to the ground.

It's to allow respiratory droplets, with greater density and mass, to fall to the ground.

There have been a variety of super spreading incidents. However

1. they're small in number.
2. they rely on static positioning of people but overlook movement and interactions outside of the positional map
3. some assume no asymptomatic spreading

As for (2), choirs don't file into the space as they arrive, never interacting. They're typically a close-knit community and move around to interact before and after. They pass around things. I've been in choirs. They may stand and sing according to a map (but even then often get moved), but they don't teleport into their positions and then teleport out, a la Star Trek.

Same for buses. Even in restaurants--for Father's Day we went out and made a point of not moving in a straight line in a restaurant if it helped to avoid people. We nonetheless had to get to the table, we each went to the bathroom and back, and we had to leave the restaurant. Others travelled past us. Had we provided a map (in the event of illness) the map would have been fraudulent if we simply indicated "that's where we were." Had there been a vent overhead pushing air down when I sneezed, the droplets would have had not just the velocity from the sneeze but the velocity of the air they were sneezed into. I haven't seen an analysis that assumed anything but still air--mostly because the description of the contexts I've seen didn't include this (crucial) information.

Apart from fear, the critical thinking side still says I need more confirmation. Science is a bear.

One of my favorite quotes is "All models are wrong; some are useful." These model COVID transmission. They're wrong. The only questions are how wrong are they and how useful are they? Model validation is hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 08:16 PM

6. It was clear that asymptomatic people could spread it long before April.

Referring to this sentence: "Then in April, after it became clear that people without symptoms could also spread the virus, the CDC suggested masks for everybody when physical distancing was difficult . . . "

Why have they been dragging their feet all along?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #6)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 09:12 PM

9. Yes and no.

It was still asserted that asymptomatic transmission was vanishingly rare.

Part of the wonder that was the WHO.

It was clear by 1/3 that human-human transmission was ongoing. But even as of 1/21 it was still said to be fairly rare.

Same for asymptomatic transmission. The results of the S. Korean pan-testing of the Xian cult that was the first S. Korean hotspot (before the gay bars were #2) came up with a large percentage, something like 30%, of people infected but asymptomatic. Still, nobody wanted to believe it and the assumption was they were presymptomatic or recovering. That was late February. Similar kinds of things kept cropping up in March. But it had to be dead-to-rights proven for the WHO to suggest the possibility.

"Precautionary principle" does not--repeat, does *not*--apply when necessary to mitigate damage to PRC honor. If it was that obvious, then it meant the PRC even more obviously lied. (The WHO head has a long relationship with the PRC. Not only was his political party very fond of and favored by China, but when he was in charge of the Ethiopian health service the Chinese poured a lot of money and advisors into Ethiopian hospitals and health care. Grants or loans, dunno.)

Oh, the WHO also walked back the 12/30 or 12/31 official governmental notification of the new unidentified respiratory illness. That's now deemed to have come through unofficial channels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 10:58 PM

10. Do real N95 masks catch stop type of type spread or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #10)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 11:01 PM

11. They work better at blocking aerosols than droplets...

... believe it or not.

Explanation:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 11:20 PM

12. THANK YOU!!!

I love visuals and good info since that helps me comprehend and retain the info better. As I watched this I was thinking of several questions to ask but as I continued watching they were all answered. I am going to have to send this to my sister who has been using cloth masks more than the N95s she has for regular use. I am not going to throw mine out or even attempt to clean them after watching this. I hope they keep the electrical aspect to them over time, or at least until this country starts making a lot more of them for the normal population. What ever happened to the War Production Act (or what ever it is called) that the fake prez supposedly signed? Has it been sitting on his desk for the last 3 months?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #12)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 11:39 PM

13. Are her N95 masks uncomfortable or something?

I'm surprised she uses the cloth ones if she has N95's.

Any mask will help. The cloth ones are a bigger help if everyone wears them, of course. The droplets are bigger and contain more virus particles, so blocking them would be a big help.

Ideally, people can avoid sharing enclosed air for very long and any suspended viruses will eventually die without a new host.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 11:50 PM

15. I don't know what her problem is...

I think it has to do with cleaning them. Personally, I don't care how dirty they get as long as they do the job. Breathing is somewhat difficult and they get hot after a little while but it is safer and that is what matters. My face/skin breaks out a little where it touches the skin from and it is difficult to cry with one on but those things are minor in my opinion.

I am a small person and have to wear child size hats and glasses and the regular sized N95 masks are tight on me but that's OK since it means I have a secure fit...Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 12:00 AM

16. I plan to keep using mine until it's difficult...

... to breathe through them from any particle build-up.

I'm removing the mask carefully, putting it away from other stuff, cleaning my hands and then cleaning my face. Then wearing a different mask the next time, and rotating through them that way. (Assuming that the older-used masks don't have many viable viruses after a few days.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 02:41 AM

17. That's what I do too.

I have 5 and am self isolating for the most part so I rarely use one more than once a week. At that rate they should last until the production of more hits the general public (sure, that's what I thought two months ago...thanks tRump!). I figure that after a few days the germs are dead so cleaning isn't really necessary. I have two old masks, not N95, from years and years ago that I can use for back up. My favorite N95 is the one that I hand lettered with tRump's name in a red circle with a slash through it. It gets tons of compliments ( I live in a Dem area).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 6, 2020, 07:13 PM

25. +1

n/t !!!!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #11)

Sat Jul 4, 2020, 11:48 PM

14. This is great! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 11:44 AM

20. Great video on the N95 mask. Thanks for sharing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #11)

Mon Jul 6, 2020, 07:11 PM

24. Great info.

Why the hell can we not buy these somewhere?

This is American genocide IMO!!!!!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 6, 2020, 07:15 PM

26. You can, but it might require some digging around the internet.

I bought some N100 masks at a woodworking store. They're the reusable kind, and many hospitals don't even use them because they don't want to train healthcare workers on how to clean them. So they prefer the disposable kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 11:25 AM

18. Whenever I read a headline from a journalist that begins with the words "Scientists say..."

...I know I'm in for a whopper.

It now seems to be a requirement that anyone receiving a degree in journalism must certify that he or she has not passed a college level science course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 12:18 PM

21. Why not contact the writer, and/or

the LA Times editor and give them a good old fashioned thumping, (well meant of course) about their sloppy, unprofessional style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appalachiablue (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 12:31 PM

22. I could write letters like that all day to newspapers and websites...

...endlessly, without ever catching up, and it would do no good.

It's almost certainly more desirable to just read real science, rather than to spit in the wind about "science" "journalism"

Regrettably, the news industry - like many other industries, often, I regret to say, including science - is more about marketing than quality.

There may be some journalists here and there who give a shit about balance and the truth, but they probably don't go very far in their organizations.

Is it just possible that an incompetent, immoral, racist, moron is in the office of the President of the United States because hyping his every word made good journalistic marketing in 2016?

Are the people who work for, say, Fox News, journalists or marketeers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 5, 2020, 05:15 PM

23. Much of US news unfortunately went over to the commercial

and entertainment side decades ago, look at typical dumbed down Americans as a result. Public education was always targeted and has taken a beating as well.

There are still some very good writers, reporters and commenters around working for smaller, more independent venues which of course don't have the resources to pay very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread