Posted on 01/12/2022 9:00:09 PM PST by SeekAndFind
One recent study found that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID and its many variants, actually isn't as infectious as "the science" - and, more importantly, the government authorities like Dr. Anthony Fauci - would like the public to believe.
Offering yet another example of how lingering in enclosed spaces doesn't dramatically increase an individual's risk of contracting COVID, Coronavirus loses 90% of its ability to infect us within 20 minutes of becoming airborne - with most of the loss occurring within the first five minutes, the world’s first simulations of how the virus survives in exhaled air suggest.
Professor Jonathan Reid, director of the University of Bristol’s Aerosol Research Center and the lead author of this study, explained why lingering in poorly ventilated spaces isn't as risky as scientists would have us believe.
Most of this decline in viral infectiousness was gleaned from a study whose authors described it as the world’s first simulations of how the virus survives in exhaled air suggest.
Interestingly, this means that ventilation, once thought to be the most effective way to ignore the physical distancing and mask-wearing likely to be the most effective means of preventing infection. Ventilation, though still worthwhile, is likely to have a lesser impact.
"People have been focused on poorly ventilated spaces and thinking about airborne transmission over metres or across a room. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen, but I think still the greatest risk of exposure is when you’re close to someone," Dr. Reid said. "When you move further away, not only is the aerosol diluted down, there’s also less infectious virus because the virus has lost infectivity [as a result of time]."
This latest study completely contradicts previous research conducted by scientists in the US, which purported to show that particles containing the virus that causes COVID could still be found lingering in the air.
Here's more from the Guardian and Dr. Reid.
Until now, our assumptions about how long the virus survives in tiny airborne droplets have been based on studies that involved spraying virus into sealed vessels called Goldberg drums, which rotate to keep the droplets airborne. Using this method, US researchers found that infectious virus could still be detected after three hours. Yet such experiments do not accurately replicate what happens when we cough or breathe. Instead, researchers from the University of Bristol developed apparatus that allowed them to generate any number of tiny, virus-containing particles and gently levitate them between two electric rings for anywhere between five seconds to 20 minutes, while tightly controlling the temperature, humidity and UV light intensity of their surroundings. “This is the first time anyone has been able to actually simulate what happens to the aerosol during the exhalation process,” Reid said.
Here's an illustration courtesy of the Guardian purporting to show how the experiment worked.
Source: the Guardian
Another iconoclastic finding from the study: the temperature of the air made no difference to viral infectivity, contradicting the widely held belief that viral transmission is lower at higher temperatures. This would seem to contradict the seasonality of the virus, a pattern that has held for the last two winters.
The study hasn't yet been peer reviewed, but we imagine scientists will be quick to scrutinize its findings - particularly the findings that contradict the research conducted by other research.
Brilliant!
Variants vary.
"Another iconoclastic finding from the study: the temperature of the air made no difference to viral infectivity, contradicting the widely held belief that viral transmission is lower at higher temperatures. This would seem to contradict the seasonality of the virus, a pattern that has held for the last two winters."
The drop in warmer weather is mainly due to more ppl being outside.
This is added by the Guardian and ventilation should not be minimized. While some degree of physical distancing and not speaking forcefully in close conversations should be the norm in conversation today, and masking can reduce viral load which (other aspects being equal) may relate to the severity of symptomatic infection, yet as in being outside in a wind, if coronavirus loses 90% of its ability to infect us within 20 minutes of becoming airborne due to drying out and masking can reduce viral load, then it stands to reason that the more ventilation of dry air is increased occurs then the more drying out will occur as well as lowering of viral load. Which is consistent with study which finds that 94% of transmission occurred in household-type settings.
And what the linked study actually says when it mentions ventilation is that,
Elevation of CO 2 levels within a room is taken as a clear sign of occupancy and poor ventilation. There has been increasing discussion surrounding the use of CO 2 monitors as a means of determining the relative risk of COVID-19 transmission in various settings. The data from this study give further credence to this approach. Not only is elevated CO 2 an indication of a densely occupied, poorly ventilated space, but it could also be indicative of an environment in which SARS-CoV-2 is more stable in the air.
Meanwhile (excerpt from an extensive compilation of research) a systematic review of peer-reviewed papers stated that five studies found a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors and that the odds of indoor transmission was very high (almost 19 times higher) as compared to outdoors. [84]A more recent estimate reported by the New York Times is that the percentage of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent.[85]
In another report researchers analyzed 54 studies with more 77,000 participants reporting household secondary transmission of coronavirus, which overall found that the risk of catching COVID-19 from family member one lives with was 16.6%.[96] However, researchers also found that just 9% of original cases were responsible for 80% of infections detected in close contacts, and that stay-at-home orders brought only marginal benefit in preventing infections, and actually can increase infections and that encounters that were most likely to spread the coronavirus were those between members of the same household.[97]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.