Read on Twitter
In fact, this whole article feels like 2020, except that it was written 45 years ago.
This whole blurb sounds very familiar.
I am glad we continue to do the same things again and again and again while people die.
This whole blurb sounds very familiar.
I am glad we continue to do the same things again and again and again while people die.
A few posts back I noted this article says airborne spread of measles is unusual.
Compare this to the current crop of comments saying "airborne spread of SARS2 is unusual", keeping in mind what those same ppl say about airborne measles.
Compare this to the current crop of comments saying "airborne spread of SARS2 is unusual", keeping in mind what those same ppl say about airborne measles.
Here is another report, from another doctor& #39;s office. Same comments: everybody thinks by droplet, but there is increasing evidence it is airborne, etc. etc.
I& #39;d suggest this is exactly descriptive of the current debate with the stalwart dogmatic adherents to droplet theory, except this was written in 1985 about measles, and it& #39;s now 2020.
In 1935, public health debated the transmission of measles.
Some believed it was ever present in the air ("miasmatic") and others believed transmitted person to person.
The former were not inclined to do anything, because quarantines wld not work.
We learned was transmitted.
Some believed it was ever present in the air ("miasmatic") and others believed transmitted person to person.
The former were not inclined to do anything, because quarantines wld not work.
We learned was transmitted.
First article is Bloch: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3982900/
Second">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3982900/&... article is Remington:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3974036/ ">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3974036/&...
Second">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3982900/&... article is Remington:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3974036/ ">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3974036/&...
Third article, from 1935, is titled as below.
Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/224834?seq=1">https://www.jstor.org/stable/22...
Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/224834?seq=1">https://www.jstor.org/stable/22...
I& #39;ll add this re measles:
Often said that measles has such a high R0 value (12-18), it must be airborne, whereas SARS2 is much lower (2.5-3.5).
A few issues.
1. R0 is measure of infectivity not mode.
Often said that measles has such a high R0 value (12-18), it must be airborne, whereas SARS2 is much lower (2.5-3.5).
A few issues.
1. R0 is measure of infectivity not mode.
2. measles R0 (Reff) varies widely. The shaded area is the often cited 12-18. (Guerra 2017 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(17)30307-9/fulltext)">https://www.thelancet.com/journals/...
Another:
And one more:
Authors& #39; conclusion is R0/Reff values are context dependent.
Think of the Skagit Choir situation - we& #39;ve seen widely divergent effective repro numbers ("highly dispersed").
Think of the Skagit Choir situation - we& #39;ve seen widely divergent effective repro numbers ("highly dispersed").
2. Experts have noted this highly dispersed R0 for SARS2, and estimate that true R0/Reff may not 2.5-3.5 but in fact double that
2a. Sanche, from February as preprint and July in CDC journal said median R0 of 5.7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32255761/ ">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32255761/...
2a. Sanche, from February as preprint and July in CDC journal said median R0 of 5.7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32255761/ ">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32255761/...
2b. Another article by Ke (w/Sanche), now in preprint, saying "This suggests a highly infectious virus with an R0 likely between 4.0 and 7.1. " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511619/
Others">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511619/... have told me models calc& #39;g 5-12 median 8 or 9.
Asymptomatic and superspread makes it difficult.
Others">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32511619/... have told me models calc& #39;g 5-12 median 8 or 9.
Asymptomatic and superspread makes it difficult.
Commentators have noted that R0 values are behaviour dependent. Part of the R0 is how transmissible the virus is in our situation. So, when the very way we live changes, our transmission patterns change, and R0 values would change. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1287467551061090306">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst...
SARS2.
R0 2.5-3.5?
Right.
R0 2.5-3.5?
Right.
SARS. Metropole Hotel.
Index case thought to have thrown up on the floor.
All grey units had people who got infected.
Index case thought to have thrown up on the floor.
All grey units had people who got infected.
In Canada, SARS spread through an ER including 7 people who just happened to be there.
Note last line, HCW who used droplet precautions still got sick.
Note last line, HCW who used droplet precautions still got sick.
SARS again. Hospital. Air distribution predictions matched actual attack. https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1289218381032243200">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst...
MERS. 2016.
Hospital.
Coloured dots infected. Red is index.
This thread has all the other pictures but airflow through open windows matched the infection pattern.
https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1289252870735331330">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst...
Hospital.
Coloured dots infected. Red is index.
This thread has all the other pictures but airflow through open windows matched the infection pattern.
https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1289252870735331330">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst...
Finally the maitre of contact transmission, Chapin himself, in 1910, said measles was airborne _at least within doors_ and that it would not be air-borne further than between adjacent beds.
Finally, Chapin himself said while he believed pathogens were not significantly transmitted through the air, he himself said further investiation needed to be undertaking to make sure he was right.
"We must be on our guard lest our generalization carry us too far"
"We must be on our guard lest our generalization carry us too far"
NB From 2016 Hui Rossi and Johnston (eds.) "SARS, MERS, and other viral lung infections."
Note "mode"
Note "mode"
Found this article from 1938 stating that measles is transmitted by "droplet".
As noted in this thread, we now accept it& #39;s airborne/aerosol (not just droplet and further than 2m).
As noted in this thread, we now accept it& #39;s airborne/aerosol (not just droplet and further than 2m).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/003591573803100735">https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/1...
To finish this thought: so we used to think measles was "droplet" until later, big outbreaks over distances and in offices made it no longer possibly for droplet people to deny aerosol, so we accepted. Elsewhere noted this for TB, etc.
To keep everything together, I got into a side discussion about the R0 for SARS-CoV2 here (off this measles thread) and because I mentioned some study names, I& #39;ll link here: https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1308343188520865792">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst...
Yet another estimate of the R0 of measles, all pre-vaccination, here.
https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1309915342777520135
Not">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst... as high as 12-18, as this whole thread noted.
https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1309915342777520135
Not">https://twitter.com/jmcrookst... as high as 12-18, as this whole thread noted.
