The Coronavirus in a Tiny Drop (nytimes.com) 63
To better understand the coronavirus's journey from one person to another, a team of 50 scientists has for the first time created an atomic simulation of the coronavirus nestled in a tiny airborne drop of water. From a report: To create the model, the researchers needed one of the world's biggest supercomputers to assemble 1.3 billion atoms and track all their movements down to less than a millionth of a second. This computational tour de force is offering an unprecedented glimpse at how the virus survives in the open air as it spreads to a new host. "Putting a virus in a drop of water has never been done before," said Rommie Amaro, a biologist at the University of California San Diego who led the effort, which was unveiled at the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis last month. "People have literally never seen what this looks like."
How the coronavirus spreads through the air became the subject of fierce debate early in the pandemic. Many scientists championed the traditional view that most of the virus's transmission was made possible by larger drops, often produced in coughs and sneezes. Those droplets can travel only a few feet before falling to the floor. But epidemiological studies showed that people with Covid-19 could infect others at a much greater distance. Even just talking without masks in a poorly ventilated indoor space like a bar, church or classroom was enough to spread the virus. Those findings pointed to much smaller drops, called aerosols, as important vehicles of infection. Scientists define droplets as having a diameter greater than 100 micrometers, or about 4 thousandths of an inch. Aerosols are smaller -- in some cases so small that only a single virus can fit inside them. And thanks to their minuscule size, aerosols can drift in the air for hours.
How the coronavirus spreads through the air became the subject of fierce debate early in the pandemic. Many scientists championed the traditional view that most of the virus's transmission was made possible by larger drops, often produced in coughs and sneezes. Those droplets can travel only a few feet before falling to the floor. But epidemiological studies showed that people with Covid-19 could infect others at a much greater distance. Even just talking without masks in a poorly ventilated indoor space like a bar, church or classroom was enough to spread the virus. Those findings pointed to much smaller drops, called aerosols, as important vehicles of infection. Scientists define droplets as having a diameter greater than 100 micrometers, or about 4 thousandths of an inch. Aerosols are smaller -- in some cases so small that only a single virus can fit inside them. And thanks to their minuscule size, aerosols can drift in the air for hours.
Just Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Now we have a digital coronavirus to deal with. Better put masks on all our phones!
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest buying stock in McAfee, they should be releasing a vaccine soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, will there soon be a huge political divide between the patchers and anti-patchers?
I'll wait for the first service pack before I install.
Re: (Score:2)
So, will there soon be a huge political divide between the patchers and anti-patchers?
I'll wait for the first service pack before I install.
Don't even think about installing it then. Microsoft can never have tested it properly. All IBM mainframe patches have been tested for 15 years before they get released up to now. How do you think they can possibly have a patch ready in just 6 months after the vulnerability became public without cutting corners?
Re: (Score:2)
So, will there soon be a huge political divide between the patchers and anti-patchers?
I'll wait for the first service pack before I install.
And when they eventually ship an update that antivirus-blocks a critical system file, it will suddenly be an autoimmune disorder. :-/
Re:Just Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahah :D
So, because we don't know how the virus spreads exactly, and all our models have failed so far, we are designing a brand new model. This is hilarious. This thing will just never end.
Yeah! How dare anyone try to figure out how the world works! Just stick with a series of concentric crystal spheres and complicated retrograde motions.
Re: (Score:3)
I must admit, if computer models can be accurate enough, that sure is a lot safer than dealing with real viruses in a lab and risking some kind of breach, leading to a global pandemic.
Not that this has ever happened of course.
Re:Just Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
So, because we don't know how the virus spreads exactly, and all our models have failed so far, we are designing a brand new model. This is hilarious. This thing will just never end.
Yeah! How dare anyone try to figure out how the world works! Just stick with a series of concentric crystal spheres and complicated retrograde motions.
Well... certainly some people could benefit from continued scientific study. For example, Bill O'Reilly and the tide [newser.com] in 2011:
“I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion,” he told Silverman. “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.”
Silverman looked stunned. “Tide goes in, tide goes out?” he stuttered. O’Reilly pressed on. “The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.”
Re: Just Great! (Score:3)
Interesting tidbit is tides are a bit more less trivial than most are taught. The general teaching was the gravity of the moon pulled the water but their are interesting theories that go on to say the moon actually lags a bit behind now and works as a kind of energy siphon. The moon moves further away and is tidally locked to the Earth, so the same face of the moon faces us and eventually even one side of Earth would face the moon. If we take this models back there's also lots of interesting stuff about Ear
Re: (Score:3)
Aerosol spread of infection isn't a new model. The theory has been around since the 1800s and was proven and quantified in the 1950s using guinea pigs infected with tuberculosis.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2... [jhu.edu]
Re: Just Great! (Score:3)
Re: Just Great! (Score:1)
Re:Republican remover! HCA awards winners rock (Score:1)
Ah such a fine example of karma.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Herma... [reddit.com]
Meaning (Score:5, Informative)
Masks work.
Re:Meaning (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, if you have a N95 one they seem to work.
But the cloth and paper ones, really don't do much from what I'm reading....
They may do a bit to impede expelling virus load if you have it, by catching larger drops, but not the finer ones.
And if you're wearing one of these, they aren't fine enough to keep you from inhaling one of these tiny aerosolized virus in the air....so, they don't do terribly well at preventing you from catching, only a bit from shedding.
I believe the N95 ones, when properly fitted, will help prevent on both sides (transmission and inhalation), but not many people wearing those.
Re: (Score:1)
Alex Jones is as credible as Anthony Fauci.
What does that statement say about your credibility taustin?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. Fauci at least tries, Jones is just basically the same as a televangelist, only that he traded religious bullshit for conspiracy bullshit, but he targets the same dupes.
Re: (Score:3)
But the cloth and paper ones, really don't do much from what I'm reading
They provide some minimal margin of protection from introduction of new particles. But it's not a huge amount. Cloth and paper masks alone aren't going to turn the tide at any rate.
And if you're wearing one of these, they aren't fine enough to keep you from inhaling one of these tiny aerosolized virus in the air.
No mask is really going to prevent inhalation. The fibers of N95 provide a Van der Waal force to capture some aerosols but it is a finite barrier and can be overcome by mechanical forces such as heavy breathing. Masks are for preventing introduction of virons into the environment and respirators are for preventing introductio [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
No , This is using a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes. The COVID virus is 50-140 nm, while the pore size in standard surgical masks is 300 nm to 10,000 nm. This is using chicken wire to stop mosquitoes.
Do you actually think those are the two relevant length scales?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, the science isn’t settled regarding the benefits, or lack of, for masking.
Yes, it is since Republicans buried a report they commissioned [imgur.com] which showed masks work.
Re: (Score:2)
Since all the data/evidence says masks work (at least surgical masks or better), have you questioned whether your understanding of how masks do their thing is incomplete?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A mask doesn't operate like a chain link fence. But the bigger point is haven't you noticed COVID is barely a problem in the countries (mostly Asian) that are willing to wear surgical masks when out in public and not party too much? Even if there is massive public transit where millions of people are crammed together every day. You've gotta attribute that success to something, and it's not that the virus doesn't infect Asians.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely N95s are the golden standard for preventing either infection or spread and, most importantly, they are pretty close to "apply mask to face, protection achieved."
But we know - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.10... [acs.org]ano.0c03252 - that multilayer cloth masks using the right fabrics are also highly efficient filter media for all relevant particle sizes when it comes to covid. The problem is 10% the media and 90% the fit.
Any m
Re: (Score:3)
Most cloth masks do not have a nose bridge. They also feature enormous gaps along the cheeks that allow breathing through the side of the mask. They also get damp after a few hours of wear on a shop floor, especially during hard labor that may require additional respiration and/or sweating.
Cloth masks as worn in most settings are not really that effective. The paper masks have other issues. I find that they start tearing after a few hours of wear, and it's possible the cheek gap those as well (which a l
Re: (Score:2)
I have facial hair so air is going to go around ANY mask.
But wearing a mask still stops me from spitting when I talk, or sneezing directly into the air, etc.
The mask was never going to be 100% effective. That was never, ever the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Covid doesn't require you to sneeze directly into the air to spread. That facial hair is going to let you spread it, and receive it. Even an N95 won't work properly under those conditions.
Also
Sneezing often makes mask damp, which significantly reduces their effectiveness. You really need to switch out masks after getting them wet. How often to people actually do that?
Re: (Score:2)
But wearing a mask still stops me from spitting when I talk, or sneezing directly into the air, etc.
Covid doesn't require you to sneeze directly into the air to spread.
Not all spread is created equal. It is believed that exposure to a smaller amount of covid can create a less serious infection because it does less reproduction before discovery by the immune system, thus masking reduces the severity of infection even when it does not prevent it. This is why masking is useful even though it does not in fact prevent infection. Nobody with a clue ever claimed it was guaranteed to prevent anyone from getting covid, only that it reduces both rates and severity of infection.
Sneezing often makes mask damp, which significantly reduces their effectiveness
I ha
Fuck Paywalls (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Bypass paywalls extension (Chrome) at github: https://github.com/iamadamdev/... [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
News company: "Learning and checking the news ain't free, shithead."
Re: (Score:2)
This is research paid for by the public, done by people employed at public institutions, running simulations on supercomputers built with public funding. If anything, the NY Times should pay additional taxes to print that story.
Re: (Score:1)
Reinfection is easier with Omicron (Score:5, Interesting)
The same folks who warned us of this new variant are now saying people can more easily be reinfected with Omicron [cnn.com] than previous variants. And it appears to spread more rapidly than previous variants as well.
"The immune response from vaccination is much stronger when compared with infection-acquired immunity. Whilst there is likely to be some impact, it is likely vaccines will still provide some level of protection," Head said in a statement to the Science Media Center in the UK. "The booster dose may be key here in maintaining a high level of protection.
"Whilst we await more data to emerge over the coming days and weeks, the message to the general public has to be -- go and get all the doses you are eligible for. Keep that protection as high as possible."
The findings may mean natural infection will not help build herd immunity, some experts said.
"Omicron has blown a big hole in the controversial argument that we should simply allow the infection to spread in an attempt to create immunity," microbiologist Simon Clarke of the UK's University of Reading said in a statement.
Re: (Score:3)
"Omicron has blown a big hole in the controversial argument that we should simply allow the infection to spread in an attempt to create immunity," microbiologist Simon Clarke of the UK's University of Reading said in a statement.
I don't get statements like the one above? What I'm seeing with Omicron is exactly what some other microbiologists suggested about a year ago. COVID19 would act just like we know other viruses act. It will continually mutate and in the process, evolve into something that's more effi
Re: (Score:1)
It will continually mutate and in the process, evolve into something that's more efficient at infecting new hosts, but will lose its ability to be as deadly.
What anti-vaxxer told you this? Was it Luckyo?
Covid spreads before you even get sick. There isn't much selection pressure to not kill the host.
The only pressure after it's been spread from you is for it to mutate to evade your immune response. And then spread that new version too.
So another reason you should be vaccinated to stop that from happening as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Omicron spreads among vaccinated hosts.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Are you thick? Don't suggest people get vaccinated to stop Omicron from spreading (or emerging in the first place) when it's blatantly obvious that vaccines can prevent neither occurrence.
If you want to get vaccinated to avoid hospitalization, fine, go ahead. But don't think you're helping promote herd immunity or prevent future variants. You aren't.
Re: Reinfection is easier with Omicron (Score:1)
Re: Reinfection is easier with Omicron (Score:1)
Round 1: 1000 new people infected Round 2: 1200 new people infected Round 3: 1440 new people infected
If a vaccine is 50% effective and you have 100% vaccination, then this changes R from 1.2 to 0.6:
Round 1: 1000 new people infected Round 2: 600 new people infected Round 3: 360 new people infected
R must be brought down at all costs. The difference between R of 1.1 and 0.9 is that in the 1
Re: Reinfection is easier with Omicron (Score:1)
With R0 (no resistance) of 9 (infect 9 people per new infection), vaccine effectiveness of 96%, and 100% vaccination, the virus R number would be 0.36, virus goes away. With 50% vaccination, R would be 4.68, quadruple each round. 60% vaccination is 3.816, virus continues to spread. 90% vaccination is 1.224, virus spreads. 90% vaccination plus 50% effective social d
Re: (Score:3)
From a viral particle size perspective as was so well documented in this article, masks do little. The COVID virus is 50-140 nm, unless it is in the smaller droplet. The pore size in standard surgical masks is 300 nm to 10,000 nm.
The virus cannot survive in the air unless suspended in liquid. Ergo, the size of the virus itself is completely immaterial. The only thing that matters is the size of respiratory droplets and aerosols that contain the virus, and those are not 50 to 140 nm or anywhere close.
The minimum size of respiratory aerosols that are likely to carry a COVID virus particle is about 4700 nm [nih.gov]. Thus, all but the largest pores in surgical masks will stop every single virus-laden aerosol.
The reason surgical masks are le
Re: (Score:2)
Ah huh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. It's true that 5000 nm is about the limit at which droplets remain in suspension, so if it is truly airborne (and that seems likely), then that 4700 nm number might be wrong, but it could also be the case that the number is correct, and it really is just barely airborne. That would explain why folks can't seem to agree on whether it is or isn't. *shrugs*
Either way, it is largely moot, because the overwhelming majority of droplets are over half a micrometer, and even surgical masks typi
Steps (Score:1)
Step 2: Get it put into blockchain
Step 3: offer it up as a NFT
Step 4: I forgot, it’s hard to focus staring at all this money
Same size for all of the variants? (Score:2)
I wonder if the different variants are all the same size and travel equally well.
And the mask won't filter them out (Score:1)
Sorry, folks, but if you can smell someone's perfume, cologne, or farts, the mask isn't working.
Biology ... purely observational (Score:2)
If you doubted it before this makes it very clear: biology consists solely of observation.
There are no first principles in biology, it is purely experimental. And what is wrong with that is: nothing is true until it is _exhaustively_ tested for counter examples.
And the problem with that is that biology has few restraints on the nature of that testing (minor barriers are raised when it comes to humans ... sometimes)
Pure experimentalism does not a 'science' make.