Search This Blog

Sunday, October 4, 2020

Tiny airborne particles may pose big coronavirus problem

At a University of Maryland lab, people infected with the new coronavirus take turns sitting in a chair and putting their faces into the big end of a large cone. They recite the alphabet and sing or just sit quietly for a half hour. Sometimes they cough.

The cone sucks up everything that comes out of their mouths and noses. It’s part of a device called “Gesundheit II” that is helping scientists study a big question: Just how does the virus that causes COVID-19 spread from one person to another?

It clearly hitchhikes on small liquid particles sprayed out by an infected person. People expel particles while coughing, sneezing, singing, shouting, talking and even breathing. But the drops come in a wide range of sizes, and scientists are trying to pin down how risky the various kinds are.

The answer affects what we should all be doing to avoid getting sick. That’s why it was thrust into headlines a few days ago when a U.S. health agency appeared to have shifted its position on the issue, but later said it had published new language in error.

The recommendation to stay at least 6 feet (2 meters) apart — some authorities cite about half that distance — is based on the idea that larger particles fall to the ground before they can travel very far. They are like the droplets in a spritz of a window cleaner, and they can infect somebody by landing on their nose, mouth or eyes, or maybe being inhaled.

But some scientists are now focusing on tinier particles, the ones that spread more like cigarette smoke. Those are carried by wisps of air and even upward drafts caused by the warmth of our bodies. They can linger in the air for minutes to hours, spreading throughout a room and build up if ventilation is poor.

The potential risk comes from inhaling them. Measles can spread this way, but the new coronavirus is far less contagious than that.

For these particles, called aerosols, “6 feet is not a magic distance,” says Linsey Marr, a leading researcher who is studying them at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. But she says it’s still important to keep one’s distance from others, “the farther the better,” because aerosols are most concentrated near a source and pose a bigger risk at close range.

Public health agencies have generally focused on the larger particles for coronavirus. That prompted more than 200 other scientists to publish a plea in July to pay attention to the potential risk from aerosols. The World Health Organization, which had long dismissed a danger from aerosols except in the case of certain medical procedures, later said that aerosol transmission of the coronavirus can’t be ruled out in cases of infection within crowded and poorly ventilated indoor spaces.


The issue drew attention recently when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted and then deleted statements on its website that highlighted the idea of aerosol spread. The agency said the posting was an error, and that the statements were just a draft of proposed changes to its recommendations.

Dr. Jay Butler, CDC’s deputy director for infectious disease, told The Associated Press that the agency continues to believe larger and heavier droplets that come from coughing or sneezing are the primary means of transmission.

Last month Butler told a scientific meeting that current research suggests aerosol spreading of the coronavirus is possible but it doesn’t seem to be the main way that people get infected. Further research may change that conclusion, he added, and he urged scientists to study how often aerosol spread of the coronavirus occurs, what situations make it more likely and what reasonable steps might prevent it.

Marr said she thinks infection by aerosols is “happening a lot more than people initially were willing to think.”

As a key piece of evidence, Marr and others point to so-called “superspreader” events where one infected person evidently passed the virus to many others in a single setting.

In March, for example, after a choir member with coronavirus symptoms attended a rehearsal in Washington state, 52 others who had been seated throughout the room were found to be infected and two died. In a crowded and poorly ventilated restaurant in China in January, the virus evidently spread from a lunchtime patron to five people at two adjoining tables in a pattern suggesting aerosols were spread by the air conditioner. Also in January, a passenger on a Chinese bus apparently infected 23 others, many of whom were scattered around the vehicle.

Butler said such events raise concern about aerosol spread but don’t prove it happens.

There could be another way for tiny particles to spread. They may not necessarily come directly from somebody’s mouth or nose, says William Ristenpart of the University of California, Davis. His research found that if paper tissues are seeded with influenza virus and then crumpled, they give off particles that bear the virus. So people emptying a wastebasket with tissues discarded by somebody with COVID-19 should be sure to wear a mask, he said.

Scientists who warn about aerosols say current recommendations still make sense.

Wearing a mask is still important, and make sure it fits snugly. Keep washing those hands diligently. And again, staying farther apart is better than being closer together. Avoid crowds, especially indoors.

Their main addition to recommendations is ventilation to avoid a buildup of aerosol concentration. So, the researchers say, stay out of poorly ventilated rooms. Open windows and doors. One can also use air-purifying devices or virus-inactivating ultraviolet light.

Best of all: Just do as much as you can outdoors, where dilution and the sun’s ultraviolet light work in your favor.

“We know outdoors is the most spectacularly effective measure, by far,” says Jose-Luis Jimenez of the University of Colorado-Boulder. “Outdoors it is not impossible to get infected, but it is difficult.”

The various precautions should be used in combination rather than just one at a time, researchers say. In a well ventilated environment, “6 feet (of separation) is pretty good if everybody’s got a mask on” and nobody stays directly downwind of an infected person for very long, says Dr. Donald Milton of the University of Maryland School of Public Health, whose lab houses the Gesundheit II machine.

Duration of exposure is important, so there’s probably not much risk from a short elevator ride while masked or being passed by a jogger on the sidewalk, experts say.

Scientists have published online tools for calculating risk of airborne spread in various settings.

At a recent meeting on aerosols, however, Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, noted that preventive steps can be a challenge in the real world. Keeping apart from other people can be difficult in homes that house multiple generations. Some old buildings have windows that were “nailed shut years ago,” he said. And “we have far too many communities where they simply don’t have access to clean water to wash their hands.”

It might seem strange that for all the scientific frenzy to study the new coronavirus, the details of how it spreads can still be in doubt nine months later. But history suggests patience.

“We’ve been studying influenza for 102 years,” says Milton, referring to the 1918 flu epidemic. “We still don’t know how it’s transmitted and what the role of aerosols is.”

https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-43fe5ca3fba1d4ebc05949a11643e03b

'Superspreaders' Driving COVID-19 Pandemic: Contact-Tracing Study

A small number of infected people are the main cause of the coronavirus's spread, according to a massive contact tracing study conducted in two Indian states.

The study published in Science found that 8% of infected individuals were responsible for 60% of new infections. Meanwhile, 71% of infected individuals did not infect anybody.

"Superspreading events are the rule rather than the exception when one is looking at the spread of COVID-19, both in India and likely in all affected places," said lead researcher Ramanan Laxminarayan, a senior research scholar at the Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI), according to a news release from Princeton.

The release said this was the largest contract tracing study of any disease in the world.

Researchers from the PEI, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, Berkeley, coordinated with public health officials in the Indian states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. They studied 575,071 people who had been exposed to 84,965 confirmed cases of COVID-19, the release said.

The study confirmed that children and young adults were the key demographics in spreading the virus and that they're most likely to spread the virus to somebody their own age.



The role of children has been in question since the pandemic began. Young adults make up about a third of COVID-19 cases, the news release said.


"Kids are very efficient transmitters in this setting, which is something that hasn't been firmly established in previous studies," Laxminarayan said. "We found that reported cases and deaths have been more concentrated in younger cohorts than we expected based on observations in higher-income countries."


The release said COVID-19 deaths in India occurred, on average, six days after hospitalization, compared to 13 days in the United States. Deaths in India have been concentrated in ages 50-64, compared to the 60-plus demographic in the United States.

India has the second-most COVID cases in the world with 6.3 million, according to Johns Hopkins University. The United States has 7.2 million. India has a much bigger population ― 1.3 billion people compared to around 329 million in the U.S.
Sources

Science. "Epidemiology and transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in two Indian states"


https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/09/29/science.abd7672


"Superspreading events are the rule rather than the exception when one is looking at the spread of COVID-19, both in India and likely in all affected places," said lead researcher Ramanan Laxminarayan, a senior research scholar at the Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI), according to a news release from Princeton.


https://environment.princeton.edu/people/ramanan-laxminarayan/


Princeton University. "Largest COVID-19 contact tracing study to date finds children key to spread, evidence of superspreaders."


https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/09/30/largest-covid-19-contact-tracing-study-date-finds-children-key-spread-evidence

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/938472

Saturday, October 3, 2020

Extreme measures Vladimir Putin takes to avoid COVID-19

President Trump may admire Russian president Vladimir Putin – but the two took radically different approaches to the coronavirus.

While Trump mostly shunned masks and flew around the country to rallies, Putin has lived and worked since the pandemic broke out in March as if he were the “Bubble Boy” from “Seinfeld.”

With few exceptions, Putin has been holed up at his home outside Moscow — with extreme measures put into place to make sure he doesn’t catch the virus.

Staffers coming to work with him have to do more than wear masks and keep six feet away.

Outsiders must traverse special disinfectant tunnels before getting anywhere near him, CNN reported.  The tunnels were installed in chez Putin in June. That same month, Putin appeared in public for a postponed Victory Day parade with dozens of World War II veterans who had to quarantine for two weeks prior to the event.

Recently, a Russian investigative news outlet outlined the elaborate rules involving contact with Putin. Those who seek even the most basic photo ops with Putin must undergo a strict quarantine for two weeks, no matter what their stature.

Proekt also said that this summer, close Putin staffers had to quarantine in a nearby health resort for two weeks and undergo rigorous tests prior to being allowed in his presence. 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/03/these-are-the-measures-vladimir-putin-takes-to-avoid-covid-19/

Even limited deployment of a Covid vaccine could have major impact

As we get closer to full approval of one or more of the promising candidates for a Covid vaccine, it’s becoming clear that we will not quickly have an adequate supply to vaccinate the entire adult U.S. population, and that many will forego this first round of vaccination. As such, it’s unlikely that an emergency vaccine will allow us to stop the spread of infection through herd immunity.

An effective vaccine can still fit into a broader transmission-control strategy, however. A few months back, I wrote that it’s “reasonable to conclude that we may see continued outbreaks for more than one to two years,” and that the U.S. needs to learn how to coexist with the virus. Even a moderately effective vaccine of limited availability and acceptance can significantly improve our ability to do this.

In the next six to eight weeks, the FDA is likely to review an interim analysis of the results of one or more of the Phase 3 trials underway. Many assume that this review will result in FDA approval of vaccine for emergency use; full approval will most likely come in the first quarter of 2021, after six months of follow up.

If emergency use of the vaccine is granted, the highest risk and most vulnerable individuals will be among the first vaccinated. While it’s not yet clear exactly who will fall into these categories, they will likely include health-care personnel, first-line emergency responders, those with chronic disease, and the elderly. (With luck, they will also include those living in communities hit hardest by the virus.) But even if only elderly people receive the first round of vaccinations, it will significantly change the risk-benefit equation for controlling the spread of Covid.

Early in the pandemic, the U.S. failed to incorporate geography’s role as a determinant of disease into its control strategies. Initially, Covid hit hardest in West Coast and northeastern cities, and especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods within them. Drastic interventions in these areas were essential to saving lives and preventing the health-care system from being overwhelmed. However, applying the same interventions to unaffected geographies imposed massive costs for a more limited benefit.

As we consider how to deploy a vaccine, we must not repeat this mistake. Age, followed by geography, seems to be the best way to consider Covid infection data. In addition, hospitalization—as a measure of severity of illness and strain on health care—is probably a better first-level indicator than number of cases. According to the CDC’s latest report, weekly hospitalization for the under-50 cohort was less than one per 100,000; at its peak, the rate for this group was between one and two per 100,000. In contrast, the most recent weekly rate for those 65 years and older was five per 100,000, and 35 per 100,000 at its peak.

To put these hospitalization figures into context, we need to look at Covid-related deaths and cases. While we have seen a significant decline in weekly deaths since the peak last spring and early summer, most deaths continue to be among those 65 years and older. As of late August, there were fewer than 20 Covid-related deaths per week for the under-24 segment, and more than 3,500 per week for those 65 years and older. The age differences persist even though, according to the CDC, the median age of confirmed Covid-19 cases decreased from 46 years old in May to 38 in August.

Data continue to confirm the belief that the main risk surrounding an increase in the number of Covid cases concerns medically vulnerable individuals. Mandates for masks and social distancing are justifiable only in order to protect those most likely to be hospitalized and die. If Covid has a limited impact on vulnerable populations, then there would be no need for government officials to take decisions about mitigating risk out of individuals’ hands.

If we can distribute an emergency-approved vaccine to the elderly and those with chronic health problems, then the cost-benefit ratio tips greatly in favor of lifting restrictions on in-person schooling, indoor seating at restaurants, and venues like theaters, sports arenas, and museums—even if we still see some spikes in Covid cases. An emergency vaccine, deployed intelligently, can thus bring us back to normal life much sooner than a strategy of waiting to achieve herd immunity.

Cuomo’s Vaccine Overreach

New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s Covid-19 press conferences have degenerated into political theater, with stock heroes and villains. He routinely praises New York’s Covid-19 response, criticizes other states, and lambastes President Trump’s statements and actions in comparison with his own unassailable leadership. But Cuomo’s recent discussion of what New York will do when the Food and Drug Administration approves a Covid-19 vaccine was noteworthy for demonstrating his hubris, his indifference to the health of his constituents, and his willingness to flout the law.

“Frankly, I’m not going to trust the federal government’s opinion and I wouldn’t recommend to New Yorkers based on the federal government’s opinion (sic). . . . New York State will have its own review,” the governor insisted. “When the federal government is finished with their review and says it’s safe. We’re going to put together our own review committee headed by the Department of Health that will advise me—we have the best hospitals and research facilities on the globe in this State.”

So instead of relying on the FDA, which has been evaluating drug safety and effectiveness for 60 years, Cuomo will rely on a state Department of Health that has no expertise in evaluating clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of new products. He will trust the same state Department of Health experts who, with Cuomo’s approval, ordered nursing homes to accept coronavirus patients from hospitals; prohibited them from testing new or returning patients for the virus to rule out active infection; and barred them from refusing to admit a resident “based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19”—a directive widely believed to have greatly increased New York’s Covid-19 death toll.

Cuomo’s assurances about New York’s health facilities echo his March 2 press conference, in which he told New Yorkers and his worried daughter that they “should relax” about the virus, “[a]nd excuse our arrogance as New Yorkers . . . we have the best healthcare system on the planet right here in New York.”

Cuomo says that we should distrust FDA evaluation of any forthcoming vaccine because the federal handling of the pandemic has been “political.” This from the same governor who delayed Mayor Bill de Blasio’s school closing and shelter-in-place orders so that he could humiliate the mayor and make a display of his authority and power. These delays are estimated to have caused thousands of extra deaths. Cuomo also commissioned, hawked, and sold a childish poster lauding his response to the pandemic, which a New York Times art critic labelled “a work of political propaganda.”

On the same day as the press conference at which he stated his doubts about the integrity of the FDA, Cuomo and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, decrying Trump’s “politically-motivated decision making,” and pointing to revelations in Bob Woodward’s book that Trump sought to minimize the threat the virus posed in order to avoid public panic, called for a congressional investigation of Trump’s pandemic response. Yet during February and March, Cuomo, despite evidence of viral spread, repeatedly downplayed the seriousness of the virus, describing it as a “bad flu,” and urged New Yorkers to stay calm and avoid panic. The governor’s complaint that Trump relied on political appointees rather than “career public servants” is ironic considering that Cuomo and his inner circle micromanaged the pandemic response of the state Department of Health, other state agencies, and local government officials.

It’s inconceivable that Cuomo does not know that his state has no legal authority to regulate vaccines. Congress gave that authority to the FDA, and no state may prohibit the sale and use of a drug that the FDA has approved. Congress intended the FDA to make uniform judgments about the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, and states may not second-guess those determinations with their own approval processes.

Cuomo’s assertion that New York will review the FDA’s determination does a disservice to New Yorkers by attempting to limit their access to, and undermine their confidence in, a vaccine that will be key to ending the Covid-19 pandemic. Every year, less than 50 percent of Americans get vaccinated against influenza. People cite concerns about vaccine safety and doubts about the effectiveness of vaccination as reasons for skipping flu shots. Several surveys indicate that many Americans share the same concerns about a possible Covid-19 vaccine and will forgo immunization. The governor’s comments will reinforce these fears, leading to fewer vaccinations and more Covid-19 infections, illnesses, and deaths.

Multiple FDA officials have stated that the agency will follow strict procedures, free of political influence, in deciding whether and when to approve a Covid-19 vaccine. But for Cuomo, their pledges, the law governing vaccine approvals, and the unnecessary deaths he could cause with his policies are apparently irrelevant. All that matters, it seems, is deflecting attention from his own failed pandemic response and pointing fingers at political opponents.

Clinical Trials Hit by Ransomware Attack on Health Tech Firm

The eResearchTechnology incidents additionally observe greater than a thousand ransomware assaults on American cities, counties and hospitals over the previous 18 months. The assaults, as soon as handled as a nuisance, have taken on larger urgency in current weeks as American officers fear they might intervene, straight or not directly, with the November election. A ransomware assault in Germany resulted within the first recognized loss of life from a cyberattack in current weeks, after Russian hackers seized 30 servers at College Hospital Düsseldorf, crashing methods and forcing the hospital to show away emergency sufferers. Because of this, the German authorities stated, a lady in a life-threatening situation was despatched to a hospital 20 miles away in Wuppertal and died from remedy delays.

One in every of ERT’s purchasers, IQVIA, stated it had been in a position to restrict issues as a result of it had backed up its knowledge. Bristol Myers Squibb additionally stated the effect of the assault had been restricted however different ERT clients needed to transfer their medical trials to maneuver to pen and paper.

In a press release, IQVIA stated that the assault had “had restricted affect on our medical trials operations,” and added, “We aren’t conscious of any confidential knowledge or affected person data, associated to our medical trial actions, which were eliminated, compromised or stolen.”

Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, two firms engaged on a coronavirus vaccine, stated their coronavirus vaccine trials had not been affected.

“ERT shouldn’t be a expertise supplier for or in any other case concerned in Pfizer’s Section 1/2/three Covid-19 vaccine medical trials,” Amy Rose, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, stated.

Corporations and analysis labs on the entrance traces of the pandemic have been repeat targets for international hackers over the previous seven months, as nations around the globe attempt to gauge each other’s responses and progress in addressing the virus. In Could, the F.B.I. and the Division of Homeland Safety warned that Chinese language authorities spies had been actively attempting to steal American medical analysis by cybertheft.


https://www.nbnews24.com/2020/10/03/clinical-trials-hit-by-ransomware-attack-on-health-tech-firm/