Read on Twitter
I repeatedly say nothing is new. I have posted 100 years of history here. Here is one closer to home.
People keep saying SARS doesn't travel through the air.
Here is Booth et al. 2005. Note authors.
SARS was known to transmit by "respiratory droplet." The usual. ...
People keep saying SARS doesn't travel through the air.
Here is Booth et al. 2005. Note authors.
SARS was known to transmit by "respiratory droplet." The usual. ...
Authors look at whether it might travel through the air.
Answer:
For most tests, recovered nothing (although noting test might not be sensitive enough)
BUT they recovered viral RNA in air by slit sampler from room w/ coughing patient.
Answer:
For most tests, recovered nothing (although noting test might not be sensitive enough)
BUT they recovered viral RNA in air by slit sampler from room w/ coughing patient.
They noted the epi characteristics of SARS never ruled out air.
They pointed to spread patterns on aircraft, and airflow dynamics studies that supported airborne spread.
They pointed to spread patterns on aircraft, and airflow dynamics studies that supported airborne spread.
They did this examination because HCW had gotten sick despite complying with PPE.
Here are the actual full results, because you should see results not my summary.
Most swabs negative (fomite). Door handle positive.
Most air negative. Slit sampler 2/10 positive (lower right). That's the room with coughing patient.
Most swabs negative (fomite). Door handle positive.
Most air negative. Slit sampler 2/10 positive (lower right). That's the room with coughing patient.
Discussion was that SARS might be opportunistically airborne (ie sometimes - whatever this means).
Also, might still be fomite because they found a little on door handles, etc. although note the number of negative swabs for fomites in previous chart.
Also, might still be fomite because they found a little on door handles, etc. although note the number of negative swabs for fomites in previous chart.
They note difficulties in collecting samples from air. These include low concentration, dilution of air, and that patients were intubated in some cases.
There is a lot of call for "did you culture the virus from the air?" these days.
Authors note that many sampling techniques aren't good for that.
Authors note that many sampling techniques aren't good for that.
But they conclude noting the air sampling technique _might_ be better at this.
Finally, studies of a cold coronavirus (229E) show it might remain in aerosols, and b/c the viral family, "one would expect" similar properties (to SARS). A point I have made.
Conclude we should investigate air, and this will guide future responses.
Mention ventilation.
2005.
Conclude we should investigate air, and this will guide future responses.
Mention ventilation.
2005.
Let me be 100% clear about lessons this art teaches:
1. "Novel virus is new" is fallacious reasoning.
2. Demanding "live virus in the air" not necessary to draw conclusions, esp precautionary ones.
3. RCT trials not necessary.
All just deflection from the real issue.
1. "Novel virus is new" is fallacious reasoning.
2. Demanding "live virus in the air" not necessary to draw conclusions, esp precautionary ones.
3. RCT trials not necessary.
All just deflection from the real issue.
