The Coronavirus Is an Airborne Threat, the CDC Acknowledges In Updated Public Guidance (nytimes.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Federal health officials on Friday updated public guidance about how the coronavirus spreads, emphasizing that transmission occurs by inhaling very fine respiratory droplets and aerosolized particles, as well as through contact with sprayed droplets or touching contaminated hands to one's mouth, nose or eyes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now states explicitly -- in large, bold lettering -- that airborne virus can be inhaled even when one is more than six feet away from an infected individual. The new language, posted online, is a change from the agency's previous position that most infections were acquired through "close contact, not airborne transmission."
As the pandemic unfolded last year, infectious disease experts warned for months that both the C.D.C. and the World Health Organization were overlooking research that strongly suggested the coronavirus traveled aloft in small, airborne particles. Several scientists on Friday welcomed the agency's scrapping of the term "close contact," which they criticized as vague and said did not necessarily capture the nuances of aerosol transmission. "C.D.C. has now caught up to the latest scientific evidence, and they've gotten rid of some old problematic terms and thinking about how transmission occurs," said Linsey Marr, an aerosol expert at Virginia Tech. The new focus underscores the need for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue standards for employers to address potential hazards in the workplace, some experts said.
As the pandemic unfolded last year, infectious disease experts warned for months that both the C.D.C. and the World Health Organization were overlooking research that strongly suggested the coronavirus traveled aloft in small, airborne particles. Several scientists on Friday welcomed the agency's scrapping of the term "close contact," which they criticized as vague and said did not necessarily capture the nuances of aerosol transmission. "C.D.C. has now caught up to the latest scientific evidence, and they've gotten rid of some old problematic terms and thinking about how transmission occurs," said Linsey Marr, an aerosol expert at Virginia Tech. The new focus underscores the need for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue standards for employers to address potential hazards in the workplace, some experts said.
Quarantine Hotels (Score:2)
Australia and New Zealand are pretty good models for this because our infection rates are very slow. A lot of quarantine workers have been infected by standing in the corridor outside a room occupied by an infected person. When a door is opened, air from the room enters the corridor and the worker is infected. Hotels like this are getting their air conditioning systems balanced so that air does not leave the room like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, and working in quarantine? They all get tested before they start work so I don't see how they could be carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of quarantine workers have been infected by standing in the corridor outside a room occupied by an infected person.
Some were also infected by having sex with the 'guests' [bloomberg.com]. Maybe it's an STD?
This is why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's OK to state that transmission has several probable paths. And there is some uncertainty in the numbers. But when they say "This is it." And then they flip flop and we mutter "Morons" under our breath.
I understand that less educated people need their leaders to appear infallible. And these leaders demand absolute, unquestioning loyalty. But stop catering to the lowest common denominator. Even if that's what got you elected.
Re: (Score:2)
To undermine science.
So why do you suppose the CDC and WHO are intent on undermining science?
Never attribute to malice .... yadda, yadda.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've studied it. Stop tilting at windmills, bad for you. And don't drink the bleach.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The GP was talking about Anti science media outlets, think Fox "News". The CDC and WHO work with the available data. Well, the CDC was a bit dodgy under the last alleged administration so maybe this is just a house cleaning effort to remove the offal they dumped everywhere.
Re: (Score:1)
The CDC and WHO work with the available data.
Not really. They are political mouthpieces. Data early on in this pandemic indicated that we don't know how it spreads. Making absolute pronouncements that they have to pull back diminishes their credibility in the eyes of all but the most attention compromised. And makes Fox News and its ilk look enlightened by comparison
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
To undermine science. This isn't news. The CDC has been saying this is likely for months now. Anti science media outlets pick stuff like this up and go See! See! They lied to you! When in actuality they were waiting for more data and weighing risks.
Not only more data but to flip back to the truth after the flop of the previous administration's practice of hiding and/or manipulating the data and their instance the coronavirus was either a hoax or no worse than the flu.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's a bit rich. The previous alleged administration would have had to recognize data. Alas, it wasn't one of their strong points. Rather they simply didn't know data exists (and wouldn't have cared if they did) and decided that they could use the Covid problem politically. Hence we got wearing masks as opposing Americans' freedom, the Democrats were promulgating the horror stories to make the alleged administration look bad, etc. When you are paranoid androids, everyone is out to get you.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just politically, but also to make money on it (the family tried, and perhaps succeeded in making money from PPE).
Re:I think it has more to do with active attempts (Score:4, Insightful)
CDC is just being conservative. That is, waiting for the facts, being sure of their data, double checkign the numbers, then giving a weighted conclusion. Safe, careful, and conservative. And conservatives hate that!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it was not conservative. If you are conservative, you state that there is uncertainty, and uncertainty is a risk.
There was very little research into coronavirus at the point, and most of it was due to SARS 1. There was a predominant opinion that it would spread like the flu via droplets, but there was not much evidence to support it. There was documented anecdotal evidence that it spreads through aerosols.
The scientifically correct statement would have been that aerosol transmission is suspected but not
Re: This is why ... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the CDC that until mid-March of last year kept advising that people shouldn't need to wear masks, only the first responders.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And restricting travel from countries with explosive growth of the disease was xenophobic and racist. Amazing how that script has flipped now.
shrug
Re: This is why ... (Score:2)
Except didn't they only restrict it for non-Americas? The Americans actually flew back against the wishes of the Chinese.
Though, if it was already in the USA then what does it matter. Iinm, the USA is the only country that doesn't allow itself to be investigated wrt the virus origin, so maybe this explains why.
Re: This is why ... (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait until SS and Medicare get cut because there is not enough money from the taxpayers to fund them. Immigration might start looking good again, but I doubt it. Instead the cuts will be blamed on the usual "they" that red America always blames instead of themselves. . . a bunch of whiny losers trumpeted by the former Whiner-in-Chief.
A different reason why (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the CDC that until mid-March of last year kept advising that people shouldn't need to wear masks, only the first responders.
Whether masks are effective had been studied at that time, because it was of interest regarding the flu virus. At that time there were some 16 studies(*) with the conclusion that masks weren't effective for reducing contamination from the flu, and for various reasons.
Then the president mentioned that masks weren't effective, and the race was on!
A spate of quickly-prepared studies showing the president as wrong were submitted to journals (with "quickly prepared" defined as "written and submitted within the span of a month"), at least one of which had data that directly contradicted the conclusion and had to be retracted after submission. This was to Lancet, a high-end medical publication, and where sloppy work should not appear.
Subsequent studies have passed muster, and apparently prove that masks are effective in preventing the spread of Covid.
I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been if the president made the opposite statement.
(*) IIRC - Something like that. I remember looking this up at the time but not the exact number.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny thing is after 2020 we have a compelling reason to think masks do stop the spread of flu virus. The work has to be done to prove it out but the numbers took a nosedive this season and it's pretty easy to consider masks played a part in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably masks, but it was by no means the only factor operating.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
at the time... [Re:A different reason why] (Score:2)
Whether masks are effective had been studied at that time, because it was of interest regarding the flu virus. At that time there were some 16 studies(*) with the conclusion that masks weren't effective for reducing contamination from the flu, ...
(*) IIRC - Something like that. I remember looking this up at the time but not the exact number.
I would be very interested if you could dig up the citation where you read that.
Re: at the time... [Re:A different reason why] (Score:2)
He's lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Subsequent studies have passed muster, and apparently prove that masks are effective in preventing the spread of Covid.
So apparently masks totally stop the spread of COVID? I think you mean "effective in reducing the spread of COVID".
Re: (Score:2)
Subsequent studies have passed muster, and apparently prove that masks are effective in preventing the spread of Covid.
I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been if the president made the opposite statement.
He would still be president.
Re: A different reason why (Score:2)
At that time there were some 16 studies(*) with the conclusion that masks weren't effective for reducing contamination from the flu, and for various reasons.
I can't find any of them I guess, everything that keeps coming up sounds like the opposite of what you're claiming. Where did you get your information?
All I keep finding are things like this from a 2017 study.
https://watermark.silverchair.... [silverchair.com]
"We found evidence to support universal medical mask use in hospital settings as part of infection control measures to reduce the risk of CRI and ILI among HCWs. Overall, N95 respirators may convey greater protection, but universal use throughout a work shift is likely
Re: (Score:3)
Honest question, do you think if in Feb/March last year, the CDC comes out and says "Hey masks are really effective in stopping spread of this but supplies are limited so please limit consumption until we have enough for medical staff and first responders" everyone in the US would just, follow that direction, or would there be a panic and just like toilet paper everyone would be buying up as many as they could?
I am not saying that's what did happen, but do you think that's a plausible outcome?
Re: This is why ... (Score:2)
I remember Faucci saying exactly that... Ie that they don't advise the general public to use masks, because there aren't enough for the people who need them in order to care for covid-19 patients, for whom the masks are especially needed.
Re: This is why ... (Score:2)
In a pinch, you can make a face mask out of used t-shirt with a pair of scissors
https://www.marinecorpstimes.c... [marinecorpstimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We also know that masks made from woven fabric, such as a t-shirt, are much less effective than other types of masks.
Re: (Score:3)
Honest question, do you think if in Feb/March last year, the CDC comes out and says "Hey masks are really effective in stopping spread of this but supplies are limited so please limit consumption until we have enough for medical staff and first responders" everyone in the US would just, follow that direction, or would there be a panic and just like toilet paper everyone would be buying up as many as they could?
I am not saying that's what did happen, but do you think that's a plausible outcome?
The same people wo panic buy guns and ammo every time a Democrat looks like he might win.
Yea, they'll totally leave the life saving masks for someone more deserving than them...
Re: (Score:1)
I think that is exactly what did happen.
Unfortunately, lying is not a good idea if you want to create public trust. Even lying for the right reason is still a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is we don't really know for sure even now. We have examples like Sweden that did very little mask wearing but also don't show much Covid-19 compared to places that did wear masks. But they did practice more social distancing, hand washing etc. This kind of research is incredibly hard to do and even after all the time the answer we have right now based on the best science available is that masks probably help, and they are unlikely to make the situation worse.
That is really the best we can do right
Re: (Score:3)
No, it simply took this long for the filth from the previous alleged administration to be scrubbed clean. I expect there's more.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The earliest reports for the virus. Especially those that circulated at the beginning in scientific circles was that the virus was probably not airborne but was persistent on surfaces and may have been waterborne. This was based on the information available from China at the time which was the source of the virus and they had the most cases at that point.
Did that turn out to be false? Yes
Where they lying? Almost certainly
But what can do you do better on a brand new virus that has never been studied before?
Re: This is why ... (Score:2)
Which i could have told them from working in open floor plan offices and getting all the cold coronaviruses twice over and maybe a flu or two despite washing my hands 6 ti
Re: This is why ... (Score:2)
Re: This is why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No..."less educated" people need to be given the opportunity to become more educated in the one and only way that underpins everything: knowing *why* we know what we know and why we don't know what we know that we don't know.
In this particular case, the correct three-bullet-point sound byte is: ...and a month/year/however later...
1. Here's how *most* viruses spread a s here's how we know
2. Until we have more reliable information on *this particular* virus, here's what we think *might* work.
3. Here's where we know we were wrong, here's where we know we were right, and here's where we have no way of knowing whether our recommendations helped or harmed
But instead, we never got item 1, so every iteration of items 2 and 3 got spun into unquestionable edicts.
And we're *all* collectively and individually stupider, more frightened, and more paranoid for it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct.
As someone who went through becoming a parent a bit more than 10 years ago, I can assure you this is also the way it works with medical knowledge about parenting ideas. I've had 3 kids, two to three years apart each, and what I would call the official "best practices" changed between my first child and my third child. I certainly have no problem with this, as I expect best practices to change over time as new knowledge becomes available.
However, "best practice" knowledge isn't called that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But when they say "This is it." And then they flip flop
It's not "flip flopping" when new evidence comes to light. That's how science works. New evidence can override old. Scientists are willing to admit when they're wrong when the evidence shows such.
and we mutter "Morons" under our breath.
Because the vast majority of Americans, and people in general, don't understand the simple message above. That's because, at least in the U.S., the constant drumbeat from certain circles debases science in favor of
Re: (Score:3)
It's not "flip flopping" when new evidence comes to light. That's how science works. New evidence can override old
Still, if this happens often, they should be a little less confident in their own beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the papers they write and the talks they give at conferences they are not super confident in their beliefs. Actually you see this with science youtube channels where scientists are interviewed.
However, often news agencies (regardless of their bias) like the make a story more interesting and shorter by editing out all the caveats. In other cases a political or spokesperson talks instead of the scientists and they tend to be FAR more certain than any data would suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
In general you are right but the should be a little confident before giving health recommendations.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you, Captain Obvious! (Score:1)
Finally. I've always said it's not just large droplets. Because it's completely obvious that droplets won't just magically pick fixed large sizes.
And yes, distance isn't solving everything, but it's still helping a bit.
Ventilating well is what gets rid of this problem. Even without keeping a distance as long as you don't sneeze, spit or sputter... so with a mask.
Next they'll acknowledge that it can survive on surfaces, as long as the droplet stays there and doesn't dry out and the UV radiation is not too st
Re: (Score:2)
Droplets won't magically pick sizes, but viruses do non magically favour certain droplet sizes.
If all respiratory viruses were like measles, we'd be proper fucked.
Based on what evidence? (Score:3)
The evidence against aerosol infection routes was never very strong, the evidence for aerosol infection routes isn't very strong either though AFAICS. Some superspreader events could also be explained by highly directional ventilation skewing the normal infection paths of large droplets for instance.
With all the trillions in money floating around because of this disease, why haven't there been hospital wards built which can transport air from near infected humans to animals for testing the infectiousness of air with varying levels of dwell time, UV, humidity, etc etc?
Re: (Score:2)
PS. I'm not arguing against the precautionary principle ... I just don't like how scientific "consensus" is so quickly transformed into Fundamental Truth.
Re: (Score:3)
The team that took the raw data from the Diamond Princess and worked out the best-fit transmission model found that they had to include a large fraction of aerosol transmission to match the data.
I seem to remember some contact tracing from Asia where people were concluded to have gotten it through the air vents in their apartment buildings.
Being charitable to the people who didn't believe in airborne transmission, their priors were to think of airborne as meaning something like measles. They figured that if
Re: (Score:2)
Some of those experiments probably where done. It is likely data is still being analyzed. I have some data I got access to 4 years ago in my PhD project and only now and I getting a paper published on it. Data analysis can be VERY hard and time consuming. Sure you can give some initial impressions but if you want to be right and try to add to our knowledge so we can respond faster in the future it is a LOT of boring and tedious work where you constantly try to find out where your analysis is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.the-scientist.com/... [the-scientist.com]
Here is one study. No need for using a hospital if animals can be used.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow that's a pretty piss poor one ... get an applied mathematics grad flunky to model whether large droplets can transfer between the cages with their given airflow, don't just assume it can't happen based on gut feeling. That's what you got all those flunkies for at the university, so you don't have to make stupid guesses. Hell a particularly smart undergrad could do it.
Re: (Score:2)
With all the trillions in money floating around because of this disease, why haven't there been hospital wards built which can transport air from near infected humans to animals for testing the infectiousness of air with varying levels of dwell time, UV, humidity, etc etc?
You'd be adding in the huge unknown variable of "how infectious is this disease to a cow/pig/monkey/etc.". A bunch of research would be needed to understand how your chosen animal is infected by covid and how it might be different from a human, and I figure that research time is better spent studying human-to-human transmission directly through modeling.
Of course, you could avoid that problem by testing on humans... but ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
why haven't there been hospital wards built
profits.
No sh... Sherlock (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
People don't instinctually know that. A lot of people (myself included) thought that coronavirus spread by touching a surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Often instinct is wrong. You just remember the incidences where it is right. Science works based on what you can actually support with data. You can't prove anything correct but you can show that X is the most likely reason for something and that many other factors are not the reason.
Get vaccinated (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
> The pandemic is essentially over in the US.
Time will tell, I'm not convinced yet. Mutations are a thing and don't have to come from the US.
95 != 100 (Score:2)
95 IS NOT 100
I kind of want to get a custom mask with that on it. I'll be up to full immunity next weekend, and traveling where I haven't dared to go since this all started; but I'll still be taking full precautions--I have to anyway in some places; but in many places I've seen a culture of non-masking crop up and I will continue to avoid those places. A coffee shop I used to love is probably permanently off my list. They were ignoring the mask mandate and allowing indoor dining last Summer. I figure if
CDC ass-clowns (Score:1)
CDC keeps flipping and flopping, those incompetents clearly should not have the authority to order us to do anything. Time for a change of guard.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists keep flip flopping. First they said the sun revolved around the earth, now they claim the earth actually revolves around the sun! Time for a change of guard.
Re: (Score:2)
hey Aristarchus of Samos got it right 2300 years ago, he even proposed the stars were other suns. Good scientists should be listened to.
Re: (Score:2)
That is how science works, dumbass. You have whatever information you have right now, you discover more information as time moves forward and you update your position. In a rapidly changing situation you update your position as needed. Over time you tend toward the right answer. Science never claimed to be right the first time and always, it claimed to follow a method and attempt to progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, better scientists in other countries didn't flounder around like our homegrown incompetents did. They were off on their own tangent and not paying attention to wise counsel.
Quit being a shill for ass-clowns, dumb-ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Some organizations are more conservative than others, yes. That does not invalidate science, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
CDC was ignoring science for more than a year, they weren't acting on science. They are the ones invalid and unscientific.
Re: (Score:2)
This goes back to the way science is taught in public schools in the U.S. Science is taught as a set of long-established, incontrovertible, unassailable facts, to be memorized and regurgitated. Very little instruction is done about the scientific method: forming a hypothesis, then designing an experiment or conducting research to prove or disprove that hypothesis, then revising the hypothesis (or trashing it entirely) based on the observed facts. To the extent that now-disproven or discredited hypotheses
Re: (Score:2)
That is a nicer way of calling the OP a dumbass but we came to the same conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
You learned science in school very differently that I did in the USA. Ours was all about hypothesis testing and how it changes over time as we learn more information. We even learned the history of scientific hypothesis to show how the views changed over time as new evidence was discovered. We learned how a few little details like the perihelion shift in mercury was what led to relativity and away from newton's theory on gravity.
The EXCUSE they need (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, anyone with half a mind knows it is an AIRBORNE threat.
See, even the genius people like p51d007, are too stupid to realize there are different kinds of airborne.
What hope is there for the rest of us?
Public health is about manipulating behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
Public health isn't about disseminating the truth or protecting the health of any individual, it's about manipulating human behavior to achieve a desired (health) outcome. This messaging has nothing to do with changing science and everything to do with spreading the "right" amount of actual FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to get (least-common denominator) people to do what the public health "experts" want.
6 months ago talking up airborne transmission and lack of safety at 6 feet would have led to panic. Now the message can be used to push the vaccine as the only solution now that vaccine supply exceeds demand in the USA.
There's a long history of this throughout covid:
Mask shortage? Tell people masks don't work and stop buying/wearing them.
Public hopelessness that there is nothing we can do? Tell people to wrap a handkerchief around their face and call it a mask because it might reduce transmission by a few percent.
Too much mobility? Fear-mongering "stay at home" or "safer at home" orders.
Too many people going shopping to do home improvement projects and gardening while they are stuck at home thanks to the above? Governor (Michigan) bans home improvement stores from selling paint and garden seeds (just before 2020 planting season).
Too many people enjoying the outdoors with no data saying it is "safe?" (also no data, anecdotal or otherwise, saying it is unsafe) Close beaches and put police tape on playgrounds.
Too many people traveling for the holidays? Institute communist-level travel logging and quarantine policies for interstate trips even if those trips are zero risk (e.g., going out of state to hike in the woods, or going to your own vacation home with your immediate household and even bringing your food from home)
Too many private gatherings in homes because other (safe) places like outdoor parks are closed (see above)? Throw out 1st Amendment Freedom of Assembly, institute draconian home gathering limits, and set up a state-wide rat-line for busybodies to notify authorities of large parties.
Not enough people wearing masks? Mandate them even outside at long distance (i.e., alone at a park). When criticized for this policy, our public health officials basically admitted the outdoor mask mandate (regardless of distance) was about messaging, not science.
Trouble getting enough vaccine uptake? Emphasize the scarcity of the vaccine to make people want it more. Refuse to give the vaccine to out-of-state residents or college students (actual NH policy for a while).
Re: (Score:2)
Good summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Public health isn't about disseminating the truth or protecting the health of any individual, it's about manipulating human behavior to achieve a desired (health) outcome.
If this is true, then we need to rethink our institutions (in the U.S.A.), because this sounds like the type of thing that would happen in a communist state like . . . err, I don't know, . . . China. Intellectually, I understand that it could be argued that my life amounts to a cog in a great big machine, but emotionally I don't look at my life that way. I believe I make most of my life decisions based on some degree of reason, and I would argue that most people, even people whom we think act unreasonably,
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they likely think they're acting reasonably, but that's not a justification for acting unreasonably. Either they're acting reasonably relative to the best known science at the time or they aren't. What they believe is irrelevant.
Way back when seatbelt laws were just starting to be enacted, there were some who chose to continue not to wear seat belts so they could be "thrown c
Re: (Score:2)
That might be a problem if there were claims with bright line distinctions that did not advance policy goals. But when there are gradual trade-offs, is it even untrue? Consider mask effectiveness: it's not that masks are either effective or not effective; that can't be true since there is more than one kind of mask. How effective are they, under what conditions, used in what situations, and based on the knowledge at what time?
You also have the problem of short term vs. long term improvement. This is analogo
About time... (Score:2)
When a virus is known to attack the lungs and is in the 9 nm - 12 nm diameter range, it is obviously airborne. At around 5 nm, particles will be completely suspended in air so COVID-19 is not quite at that level, but it is still going to float in the air for some time. No studies are required to figure this out - the same physics applies to all particles.
The fact it has taken so long to admit this fact is troubling. A virus this small is going to be airborne the vast majority of the time. Also due to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CDC updated their guidance many months ago that the virus was very likely spread as an aerosol. This is not an actual airborne pathogen like measles. This is just a further update due to more research and greater certainty. This is expected and there is nothing wrong with it.
While it seems obvious to you right now that this disease travels through the air early on our best knowledge was that it transferred via surfaces and it could have been waterborne.
It took them that long to figure this out? (Score:2)
What were they waiting for - more statistical studies? For a virus that's killed half a million citizens?
Why did they not just conduct direct experiments? You know, with young, low-risk human volunteers? Or chimps/hamsters/cats?
There's too much statistics and too less physics, chemistry and biology in health studies these days.
That's unpossible! (Score:2)
The WHO (Wuhan Health Organization) told us there is no human to human transmission!
Politics aside (Score:1)
I wonder what implications this has for what we can best to do protect ourselves?
Trust the experts (Score:2)
Trust the experts. If they say X and also NOT X, they are right, at least some of the time.
I didn't know the WHO... (Score:2)
Right after the GOP administration leaves office (Score:2)