Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Washington Post: Asymptomatic 'Superspreaders' May Be Propelling the Pandemic (stripes.com) 299

Saturday the Washington Post (in an article republished in Stars and Stripes) took a closer look at what's known as "superspreading events": Many scientists say such infection bursts — probably sparked by a single, highly infectious individual who may show no signs of illness and unwittingly share an enclosed space with many others — are driving the pandemic. They worry these cases, rather than routine transmission between one infected person and, say, two or three close contacts, are propelling case counts out of control...

Transmission, it turns out, is far more idiosyncratic than previously understood. Scientists say they believe it is dependent on such factors as an individual's infectivity, which can vary person to person by billions of virus particles, whether the particles are contained in large droplets that fall to the ground or in fine vapor that can float much further, and how much the air in a particular space circulates. Donald Milton, a professor of environmental health at the University of Maryland, and other experts have wondered if superspreading events could be the "Achilles' heel" of the virus. If we could pinpoint the conditions under which these clusters occur, Milton argued, we could lower the transmission rate enough to extinguish the spread. "If you could stop these events, you could stop the pandemic," Milton said. "You would crush the curve..."

Some people will not transmit the virus to anyone, contact tracing has shown, while others appear to spread the virus with great efficiency. Overall, researchers have estimated in recent studies that some 10 to 20 percent of the infected may be responsible for 80 percent of all cases... An infected person's viral load can impact how much they "shed"; the differences have been shown to be on a scale of billions of virus particles... A growing body of evidence suggests that SARS-CoV2, like other coronaviruses, expands in a community in fits and starts, rather than more evenly over space and time....

While it's often impossible to identify the person who triggered an outbreak, there have been some commonalities among those who have been pinpointed as the likely source in studies. They tend to be young. Asymptomatic. Social. Scientists suspect these "super-emitters" may have much higher levels of the virus in their bodies than others, or may release them by talking, shouting or singing in a different way from most people... In a study published in Emerging Infectious Diseases by Japan's Hitoshi Oshitani at Tohoku University of 22 superspreading individuals with the coronavirus, about half were under the age of 40, and 41 percent were experiencing no symptoms.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington Post: Asymptomatic 'Superspreaders' May Be Propelling the Pandemic

Comments Filter:
  • Well now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @03:47AM (#60306305)

    This thread will be fun...

    • I think you just identified the problem in a very terse and unambiguous way.

      • by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @05:51AM (#60306523)
        He who would sacrifice his health for his freedoms, deserves neither health, nor freedoms. - Benjamin McRetard.
        • I think it's time we finally realize that dealing in absolutes is not a solution to anything. The world is not binary, and neither are the things we are doing. Not everything that you do that limits your freedom is a threat to your freedom in general. We don't drive as fast as we can on the highway and we do not consider it a threat to our liberties that we're not allowed to go 150 within city limits just 'cause it might hurt a kid or two. We understand that this is a threat to society and even if you, in y

          • by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @06:43AM (#60306577)

            I think it's time we finally realize that dealing in absolutes is not a solution to anything. The world is not binary ...

            In this case it pretty much is binary. There are two options. You can wear masks, distance and use hand sanitiser is which is smart. Or you can refuse to wear masks, distance and use hand sanitiser and thus wilfully sustain a pandemic just because you think it pisses off people whose politics you despise which is just stupid. Viruses do not have a political opinion, viruses have no nuance, they will happily infect anybody at all and you can either make it hard for them or you can make it easy for the virus to spread. Those are the two choices.

            • by wisdom_brewing ( 557753 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @11:11AM (#60307331) Homepage
              You can wear a mask most of the time indoors (e.g. in shops but not at home), wear it all the time even when walking around alone.

              You can socially distance in a paranoid manner or "sensibly" or barely at all or run around hugging strangers.

              You can use varying quality hand sanitisers or wash your hand with varying degrees of hot water for varying amounts of time with soap.

              This is NOT binary but more people doing the right thing helps us all. If half the world stays at home R0 falls by roughly half. Every little helps
              • You can wear a mask most of the time indoors (e.g. in shops but not at home), wear it all the time even when walking around alone. You can socially distance in a paranoid manner or "sensibly" or barely at all or run around hugging strangers. You can use varying quality hand sanitisers or wash your hand with varying degrees of hot water for varying amounts of time with soap. This is NOT binary but more people doing the right thing helps us all. If half the world stays at home R0 falls by roughly half. Every little helps

                You are obfuscating. This is a simple binary choice, you either do something to prevent the spread of the virus or you decide to be a stupid asshole and don't do anything to contain the spread of the virus. There is now an abundance of examples of counties that went overwhelmingly for the 1st option and have long since contained the virus.

                • Yes, and I am saying it is a spectrum - from indivuduals causing actual harm (we have all seem plenty) to the individuals thay havent left their homes since March.

                  I fully promote anything that reduces R0 and helps us get past this sooner (just small flare ups here and there as in Hong Kong with 84 infections being a massive deal, or local lockdowns in Germany/UK). Will be very interesting to see what happens in the next 2 years
            • by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @12:17PM (#60307585)
              You're creating (for those refusing to wear masks) a false dichotomy - masks or pandemic. They don't believe this is a pandemic, but rather a bout of the normal annual flu that's being hyped up in a media-inspired conspiracy to tank the economy before the election. You can't use reasoning based on your base assumptions, to convince someone with different base assumptions that their reasoning is wrong.

              To correct their misbelief, you need to convince these people that this really is a pandemic. Unfortunately, double standards like refusing to criticize Floyd protesters for attending large public gatherings just reinforces their misbelief that this pandemic is a hoax. That really was an opportunity missed. If the media had come down hard criticizing the public protests due to the danger of the pandemic, it would've shown these who believe this is a media hoax that the media genuinely believes it's a pandemic - so much so that they're even willing to sacrifice causes dear to their heart because of it. Unfortunately, the lack of criticism simply reinforced their belief in the conspiracy. The way they see it, the media insists you should not gather in public, unless it's for a cause the media supports in which case it's OK. Not exactly the consistent message you expect for fighting a global health hazard.
  • Hopefully more people are working from home [dilbert.com] nowadays, though.

    • Hopefully more people are working from home nowadays, though.

      That is one thing that has no negatives, but which all too many businesses are ignoring or just undoing. Working from home stops asymptomatic spread, and increasing productivity. Even before the pandemic, it should have been a fireable offense for management to not allow (or even require) those who can work from home to do so. Now, not doing so should be a prosecuteable offense as well. The sequencing doesn't matter.

  • or are scientists in different continents repeat the same research over and over again with a delay timeframe. The superspreader problem was discussed in Europe publicly two months ago when studies of this phenomenon arrived. Now again, all I can say here is nothing new move along.
    The same for masks, chinese doctors coming to italy recommended to wear masks in February as an effective countermeaser to spread the disease.

    • Special kids need to touch the stove themselves...

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Special kids need to touch the stove themselves...

        Pretty much. And some need to do it several times and will continue to claim they will not get burned if they do it.

    • by fazig ( 2909523 )
      It's called corroborating evidence. And that is just a normal thing in science.

      And while I'm not one of those "I told you so guys" I saw this plausibility a while back https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

      And if I can see that by just using a bit of common sense while having no background in biology, the experts in those fields most certainly also saw it immediately and formed such a hypothesis. Still, such a hypothesis requires to be proven by evidence first before it can be accepted as a valid explanatio
    • For major research this is normal. The only reason this looks strange is that since this is such a public problem the news is reporting on how science works. If you find something really important and outside of what is normally expected then other labs will replicate it. Since this is such a huge emergency governments are funding a lot of research and one of the important things is trying to make sure our understanding is correct. That means lots of replication in various locations and conditions to try an

    • Scientists absolutely repeat each others' work. They do this because novel research results often don't hold up. In fact, I'd say most exciting new results are false.

      Reporters don't understand that. Like the general public, they've been brought up on pop-culture tropes of a lone scientist in his laboratory discovering some kind of new, unassailable truth. In reality this almost never happens. When it does appear to happen, 99% of the time it's a mistake. Even the best scientist can't think of every possi

    • It isn't you. It's science. That's how science works. Studies are repeated over and over. Repeatability is a qualification of a good study.
    • The superspreader problem was discussed in Europe publicly two months ago when studies of this phenomenon arrived. Now again, all I can say here is nothing new move along.

      The problem is that the WHO continues to muddy the waters [statnews.com]. I'm getting more and more on board with the idea that funding them is a waste of money...

  • by Generic User Account ( 6782004 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @04:31AM (#60306377)
    Wear a mask, even if you don't feel sick at all.
    • But muh freedumz!

      • The fire burns without you fanning it.
      • by mark-t ( 151149 )
        How does wearing a mask impose any restriction on your freedom that wearing a shirt or shoes does not also? Bearing in mind that you can also be prohibited from certain public indoor places when you are shirtless or barefoot.
        • How does wearing a mask impose any restriction on your freedom that wearing a shirt or shoes does not also?

          A mask makes it somewhat difficult to socialize on a bar patio while enjoying a beer and a burger. A shirt and shoes do not.

        • How does wearing a mask impose any restriction on your freedom that wearing a shirt or shoes does not also?

          You're wearing cloths going out? I just go in the nude. Surprisingly it works in winter too. The act of running away from the police warms you up.

    • For the moment, yes, we have to take blanket measures because we don't have enough specific info about individuals

      That could change if these breathalyzer-type detectors pan out.

      https://www.medgadget.com/2020... [medgadget.com]

      The question is accuracy. But in light of this story, maybe 100% detection of virus in the body is not important. If breathing into this device is highly predictive of whether that individual will spread to others, and we could all check our selves daily, then detecting asymptomatic, non-contagi

    • Even better, don't go to a small room with a hundred people yelling.
  • If you are not well, stay home! I really believe that people who don't feel well, but don't want to miss out or be bored at home are driving the infections.
    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      Note, in medical literature, asymptomatic means never showing symptoms through the entire course of the infection.

      It is very much possible to be infected and feeling fine, go out and give it to a dozen other people, then the next day you look and feel like hell.

      That's not even counting the people who ARE symptomatic but write it off as allergies or a little cold.

      That's why the proper practice is if you feel sick, stay home. If you feel fine, socially distance and wear a mask.

  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @06:22AM (#60306553)
    Being an equally good armchair virologist as anyone else, I propose that viruses are primarily spread by asymptomatic allergy sufferers who sneeze a lot. This also neatly explains why wearing masks work and seem to stop the spread of most of these type of ilnesses, whether flu or TB or rhinoviruses.
    • Being an equally good armchair virologist as anyone else, I propose that viruses are primarily spread by asymptomatic allergy sufferers who sneeze a lot.

      Huh, that's not actually a bad hypothesis.

      Masks, in that case, will help twice; both by stopping droplets, but also by stopping pollen from triggering the allergic sneezing.

  • A super spreader could be as simple as someone being very popular or charismatic - a person who is generally loved and thus causes others to lower their guard around them.

  • by Dan East ( 318230 ) on Sunday July 19, 2020 @08:53AM (#60306819) Journal

    Some people will not transmit the virus to anyone, contact tracing has shown, while others appear to spread the virus with great efficiency. Overall, researchers have estimated in recent studies that some 10 to 20 percent of the infected may be responsible for 80 percent of all cases...

    I have a strong hunch that this is true for most all infectious respiratory diseases, like the various strains of flu, the common cold, etc. There are a surprising number of common things that have never been studied (rigorously) in human health, because doctors feel they already have a good enough handle on them, or they do not often result in death or long-term health issues (in other words, the research money isn't there). I think we are learning a lot more about how any respiratory infection spreads from person to person, due to the amount of money and effort being spent to figure out this one specific virus. Especially things like asymptomatic carriers, superspreading individuals, how blood type can affect the severity of the symptoms, the tremendous amount of diversity in the severity of symptoms between people, etc.

    There have been many times where one or more of my kids have had the flu and other colds, and I did not get it (even though I was talking care of them pretty much right in their face). That makes me wonder if I did indeed catch it is well, but was simply asymptomatic.

    After all, COVID-19 is just another coronavirus, which is a very common type of virus family. There isn't anything especially exotic or vastly different in its DNA, so we wouldn't expect it to have all of these strange traits which no other viruses have.

    • Some people will not transmit the virus to anyone, contact tracing has shown, while others appear to spread the virus with great efficiency. Overall, researchers have estimated in recent studies that some 10 to 20 percent of the infected may be responsible for 80 percent of all cases...

      I have a strong hunch that this is true for most all infectious respiratory diseases, like the various strains of flu, the common cold, etc

      You are right about one thing, this is a common phenomenon. However, it doesn't apply to just human health, it applies to a wide number of natural phenomenon. It was first identified by an economist, Vilfredo Pareto. [wikipedia.org] The 80/20 relationship is called the Pareto principle. [wikipedia.org]

  • I would be careful about "superspreader" theories.
    Once a person is tested positive, naturally, you are going to do some contact tracing and maybe find a few more case. But there is no indication of who infected who.

    For example, someone who is tested positive went to a club, bar, and gym. People in that club, bar, and gym will be tested and cases will be found. It is easy to mark the original person as a "superspreader", but maybe the 3 places are 3 independent clusters and the so called "superspreader" just

  • probably sparked by a single, highly infectious individual who may show no signs of illness and unwittingly share an enclosed space with many others

    That explains why Governor Newsom believes it's the safest place to be. Avoid those beaches with all that UV and fresh air and separation. Stay huddled together in the dark, nervously glancing at each other wondering which one is the carrier!

  • They could try no platforming or canceling as a strategy to shrink the number of cases.

    • They could try no platforming or canceling as a strategy to shrink the number of cases.

      Did you mean "deplatforming"?

  • "While it's often impossible to identify the person who triggered an outbreak.. They tend to be young. Asymptomatic. Social. ... talking, shouting or singing in a different way from most people."

    "Asymptomatic," so they only way to find the hidden super-dangerous ones is if they are "young" and acting "different." Surely I'm not the only person who sees what behaviour this vague advise will justify.

  • ... are potentially super-spreaders? ;)

    We all know the type. Those who do not seem to understand social distance in normal times. Those that feel the need to constantly be heard and generally bellow above everyone else in order to do so. Those who would just barge into a group of people who are quietly chatting, just to be heard? "Here I am folks! Miss me?"

    It's those damn voice projecting shouty fake loud laughing ones you have to watch out for.

    I always knew there was something shifty about that type, damn

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...