WHO and airborne transmission

[labyrinthloafer]

Been wondering about this latest update from WHO, as this has implications for schools and offices www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-airbourne-transmission-world-health-organisation-a4491876.html

It is hard with this virus, as we are getting new info and opinions all the time.

This hasn't helped me feel better about school, tbh, or the office.

@WhyNotMe40 I can’t open any of my windows as they are sealed from many years of repainting but never sanding. Classroom doors can be opened but what’s the point when there is no through air from a tight corridor which has many fire doors blocking air (obviously they can’t be propped open).

It really is a worry and I’m not sure what we can do about it.

A slightly different perspective...

www.livescience.com/coronavirus-airborne-transmission-debate.html

Thank you for the link @MarcelineMissouri

I do hope it gets more detailed investigation.

Even the new build schools with their amazing cooling/heating systems and recycling rain water aren't much better. These should be wonderful to work in.

One at least has loads of windows that fully open, designed to circulate the air etc. Well you know sometimes know matter how many windows and doors you have open, if the windows are in the wrong place they let in very little wind even during storms. The whole place was built like this so in reality nothing worked 🤣 Would be pouring from with rain and the windows wide open, a couple of drops would get in. Well unless another leak had developed on the not so good rooftop playground and the buckets needed again.

I was thinking I was going crazy as I remember WHO mentioning air born in the beginning of the year. And yes January 10th they produced guidance and included stuff about airborne and aerosol.

www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19

@labyrinthloafer seems to me the best strategy for those who can is to limit time indoors (other than in your own home) to the bare minimum, which is what I’m doing.

There was always evidence that it is airborne but WHO didn't want to listen.

No, this is not accurate.

We're only 6 months into this so there hasn't 'always' been evidence of anything. We're all learning a lot of things fast and there is still a lot we don't know.

Nevertheless, WHO have always worked on the assumption that the virus could become airborne which is why their first comprehensive package of guidance, released on January 10, recommended keeping indoor spaces well ventilated, opening windows etc. and also included specific guidance on aerosol generating procedures.

In last night's press conference they said they are reviewing around 500 new scientific papers every day, of varying quality, many of which are contradictory. They won't change guidance until they have a good amount of evidence and can do a systematic review, as they did with face coverings. Also last night they said they have been in regular contact and collaborating with many of the signatories of the letter since April, and are taking on board the emerging evidence. They said they will be producing a scientific brief over the next few days which will summarise the current state of knowledge of all transmission routes.

I don't expect their guidance to change much because, while airborne transmission can happen, it appears most transmission does happen through the spread of droplets. The success we have had so far - and some countries have had remarkable success - has been through the prevention of droplet transmission (aerosol generating procedures in medical settings notwithstanding).

Saying 'it is airborne' is too simplistic and may cause panic or despondency. The last thing we need is for people to decide there is no point to social distancing, face masks, hand washing etc. because it's in the air anyway. The last thing we need is for people to become extremely anxious because it's in the air and they can't avoid it.

Useful questions are things like -

How often does airborne transmission actually happen, as opposed to droplet transmission?
Which environments are the highest risk?
What can be done to mitigate the risk in those environments?
Is the cost of those mitigations worth the reduction in risk in any specific environment?

I’m not sure why people are surprised by this. It’s obvious. It should be anyway.

Do people think 'airborne' transmission is just about masks?

The civil engineers & atmos chemists who wrote the opinion letter to CID are strongly advocating for air filtration systems in offices (expensive and not instantly protective and won't stop someone coughing on you), and germicidal lights (cost $1000 each light, google far UVC). That's about the sum total of their conclusions what should be done differently from existing policies.

To be honest I will just be happy if they can decide that masks reduce the droplet infection risk.
I will feel so vulnerable in a secondary school classroom with lots of different students every day without anyone wearing masks, and without much chance of ventilation

I would love to see concrete data about how transmission actually occurs - as against how it might theoretically occur.

I've always felt, for example, that the someone sneezes, you touch the hard surface 6 hours later and then rub your eye route, while clearly theoretically possible, wasn't likely to be the main issue. No basis for that - just a hunch. But if they could (somehow) demonstrate that a reasonable proportion of people caught it that way, I would probably be a bit more inclined to wipe the handles of shopping trolleys etc.

Intuitively, the most likely way to catch it is to spend time close to infected people, in which case preserving 2m distance, wearing masks and avoiding crowds will pretty much do the business for me. I am more than happy for my intuition to be proved wrong by clear scientific evidence.

I would also like to see any evidence of spread via children's playgrounds.

WHO seem pretty useless tbh

[quote PuzzledObserver]@labyrinthloafer seems to me the best strategy for those who can is to limit time indoors (other than in your own home) to the bare minimum, which is what I’m doing.[/quote]
Basically I have taken this approach, we go out lots, meet people - but outside.

Surely the government is bracing for winter even if not openly saying it. They just budgeted £15 billion for PPE.

@Bagelsandbrie

I’m not sure why people are surprised by this. It’s obvious. It should be anyway.

The fact that the WHO is changing messages is worthy of some notice IMO.

I’m sticking to outdoors socialising at the moment. No interest in going inside to pubs and restaurants. We know the risk inside is far greater.

Total recipe for disaster
Is it? Let's wait and see.

Purely an economic move. What's wrong with this? Statements such as this make the poster sound a bit ignorant. We need goods and services, people need incomes, roofs over their heads. People are losing their jobs because of lockdown, others are losing their minds juggling work and home schooling. People are getting overweight and depressed, socially isolated anxious, missing routines and getting apprehensive.

We are more than just biology that might or might not get infected with a virus. We need social interactions, access to healthcare, routine surgery, cancer treatments, education, and yes, fun. The arts and entertainment sector have massively suffered under lockdown.

It make sense that the virus is airborne. Seeing that people have continued to go to supermarkets without masks during the hight of the pandemic, it's not exactly a shocking revelation, keep calm and carry on. Work from home if possible, wear a mask where feasible, wash your hands, there isn't much more we can do.

MedSchoolRat exactly - for any setting without plenty of windows that can be opened to allow a generous, natural throughput of air, any mitigations are going to be expensive. There is no way of knowing whether these additional expenses are worth it until we know how much additional risk there is from airborne infection. And this will be different for each setting, both in terms of risk and expense and local infection rates.

It's worth establishing best practice and standards for new buildings and refits, but as far as telling businesses what they must spend NOW, to mitigate immediate risk, when they are already on their knees - it's more complicated and we need more data. In the meantime we should continue to focus on making sure all businesses are following the current guidance to prevent droplet transmission because plenty are not and this would make a huge difference to infection rates.

Sky news have just done an article on the WHO thinking, an example given was from China where several people caught CV from an asymptomatic person BUT only those in the path of an air conditioning unit.

Countries with 1m or 1.5m SD rules have not seen any significant 2nd wave yet.

I am with you, @Bagelsandbrie, it's pretty logical to me, if virus is light and microscopic it will take a while to drop to the ground/surfaces, surely any air movement, whether indoors or outdoors will blow it around.
I recall the same animated clip of someone sneezing/coughing in a supermarket isle being shown in early weeks of the lockdown and despite that, people kept saying it wasn't airborne??

I also would dearly like to know whether this virus stays in the body of the person who has had it and can resurface again when run down like eg herpes/cold sore virus does.

They just test its presence in nose/mouth but what if it hides in the nerve cells?

I think masks are the way to go.
People sharing offices and buses have caught it.
Also with masks only meeting outside etc we could limit the spread of other colds and flus. That's last thing anyone needs is both at once!
Also any fever or cough having to be tested isnt going to be fun and expensive to do all the tests.
Imo 50% of all classes in school. But i would do week on week off to allow all the virus to fall to the floor etc.
Our school will have 60 kids using about 3 toilets across each year group.

£15bn is a lot surely they know for sure there will be another wave then?

Also if it's not in the air requiring masks why are mask wearing countries doing so much better!

I do think england strategy is herd and suppress. So getting some more people through to lower the next peak.

They might have updated since. this was published back in May to advice businesses how to operate

www.who.int/publications/i/item/considerations-for-public-health-and-social-measures-in-the-workplace-in-the-context-of-covid-19

This is one of the many documents they have produced about schools

www.who.int/publications/i/item/considerations-for-school-related-public-health-measures-in-the-context-of-covid-19

5th June updated mask advise again mentions the possibility of airborne
apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332293

keepdistance re masks, so do I; but Christ, how I was howled down 4 weeks ago for suggesting on here that the route to any form of 'normality' was FFP3 masks, all around!

The whole timeline so far from WHO. Some interesting stuff on there including public calls for nations to take this serious, hospital plans, ppe, track and trace.

www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline

For health professional reading, they also have an App that is an ever growing bank of medical info. It's available in several languages and been around since May

www.who.int/about/who-academy/the-who-academy-s-covid-19-mobile-learning-app