How SARS-CoV-2 Spreads: MIT Team Investigates

[.Scott]

TL;DR

If you want to avoid (or spread) Covid-19, you need to know its Modus Operandi. Think "Tobacco Smoke".

In an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, an MIT team investigates how Covid-19 spreads:

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2018995118

The article sites numerous other studies including those of super-spreader events and provides detailed models for the mechanics of SARS-CoV-2 mobility.
It does not fully support current CDC guideline.

From my point of view, if we can finally get this right for Covid-19, we should have better policies in hand for future Coronavirus epidemics.

 

[scottdave]

I'll take a look at the article. Interesting click bait title

 

[.Scott]

I'll take a look at the article. Interesting click bait title

After reading the article, I believe you will find the title to be a lot more "click meat" than "click bait".
My impression is that a lot of the precautions that have been recommended for Covid have been adopted from measures used for earlier infections. So an article that takes a critical look at how it spreads and the measures that are effective and ineffective, is right on target.

I believe the title appropriates denotes a critical look at how SARS-Cov-2 spreads - and will pique the interest in anyone interested in taking a close look at that topic.

 

[Laroxe]

I'm not sure what I think about this, it's certainly a detailed attempt to develop risk reduction strategies but even with the detail, I'm unsure it captures the very real complexity of transmission. The fact is that the guidelines have been developed not just on the science but on the need for pragmatism in the face of limited understanding and reactivity to social control, the guidelines also have a history, which affect acceptance.
My first concern was in the attempt to quantify the initial inoculum or the minimum infective dose, this in itself is no easy task a good definition is. “The minimal infective dose is defined as the lowest number of viral particles that cause an infection in 50% of individuals (or 'the average person'). While we know this virus is particularly infectious, this is the first time I've seen anyone estimate this at 10 infectious particles, this seems very unlikely, most seem to fall into the range of 100 to 1000. This one goes for about 100,

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...tory-viruses/8607769D2983FE35F15CCC328AB8289D#

This one 1000
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clinlabnavigator.com%2Fsars-cov-2-infectious-dose.html

There are then issues around the infected person shedding the virus and like it or not distance from the source does seem important as does the behaviour of the source and the recipient. Really we have to consider virtually all the numbers as rough approximations, and we still need more data to make these more reliable.
I think if the idea is that our understanding of COVID-19 transmission will dramatically improve our response to future pandemics may be a triumph of hope over experience, we already have a great deal of information about the way in which diseases spread, but each one is different and represents a new challenge. Remember how long it took to decide the principle ways in which COVID-19 was spread, we need specific observations of any new disease. Sometimes our expectations can be very misleading and in fact before the pandemic it was recognized as a risk and two countries in particular were identified as having prepared very well, they were the USA and the UK. The new pandemic even challenged our expectations of flu.
I suppose my concern in this study was the idea that we can make useful predictions and develop fixed enduring strategies from unreliable data about unstable situations.
I remember a comment about research in biology that said; "Under the most controlled conditions of light, temperature, humidity, and nutrition, the organism will do as it damn well pleases." I think this has some validity, there are to many variables some of which we may not even know.

This is a good review of several of the issues;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686757/

 

[scottdave]

After reading the article, I believe you will find the title to be a lot more "click meat" than "click bait".
My impression is that a lot of the precautions that have been recommended for Covid have been adopted from measures used for earlier infections. So an article that takes a critical look at how it spreads and the measures that are effective and ineffective, is right on target.

I believe the title appropriates denotes a critical look at how SARS-Cov-2 spreads - and will pique the interest in anyone interested in taking a close look at that topic.

From what I've read, so far, it looks like a good article.
Sorry, I was just having a little fun with your choice of subject/title: How to Spread Covid-19

Who wouldn't want to click on that to find out more... I did.