Scary Peer Reviewed Science - Trigger Warning

[ClimbDad]

Taking Mumsnet HQ’s suggestion on board, this thread is for those who want scientific information about COVID-19. It is clearly advertised as scary, and has a trigger warning, so no complaints from anyone complaining they didn’t know what they were stumbling into.

I’ll only be sharing peer reviewed papers from respected journals and would advise anyone else who wants to share anything to use the same criteria.

The thread isn’t actually designed to scare. It’s designed to inform, so that people can make a decent assessment of risk and lobby decision makers when appropriate. Don’t assume government knows more than you. They’ve been behind the curve on everything.

I’ll start. The Guardian wrote a good article about the progress of respiratory viruses through autumn and how we don’t know whether SARS-COV-2 will compete with flu.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/19/what-happens-when-flu-meets-covid-19

The theory of viral competition suggests COVID19 might be kept at bay by flu. In other words infection by other respiratory viruses might help reduce the impact of a second wave.

However this peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Medical Virology suggests flu and COVID19 don’t compete, and coexist simultaneously.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.26364

The inference is that having SARS-COV-2 circulating at the same time as influenza will cause more serious infection. It doesn’t seem that viral competition will make things better.

Practically what does this mean? I believe it means it is prudent to be even more cautious during flu season than we were in spring, and to do everything possible to reduce transmission. That is going to be particularly relevant to schools. Even if one refuses to accept schools play a role in COVID19 transmission, it is established science that schools are the engines behind influenza transmission every year, so precautionary measures make sense even if just to reduce spread of flu.

marking place

Another place marker if I find any peer reviewer docs, positive or not, will add

Peer reviewed, published in the gold standard of journals: Nature.

A scientific report proving SARS-CoV-2 is airborne.

www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69286-3

Not sure how anyone can rationally argue against masks in schools or any setting after this.

I read that study earlier. Its very thorough. Does not confirm airborne transmission though. It is mainly about fomites. It even says:

"Our study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination around COVID-19 patients is extensive, and hospital IPC procedures should account for the risk of fomite, and potentially airborne, transmission of the virus."

Also, they could only replicate the virue they found in cell cultures in some of the samples, not all.

"The observation of viral replication in cell culture for some of the samples confirms the potential infectious nature of the recovered virus."

Potential, not confirmed.

twitter.com/AliNouriPhD/status/1288534942276780032

Link to peer reviewed paper on aerosols.

Oh sorry, already done.

Place marking , thank you

Thank you, had heard about viral competition, thanks for starting

I am interested why when the paper itself does not confirm 'proof', that you think you can?
I'm sure a scientist would present a study in a more balanced way along with the limitations of the study i.e. Only some of the samples could be cultured and therefore were viable virus. Also is it a big enough viral load to cause an infection? So this could suggest it is airbourne under some circumstances, perhaps? But not all. I am not sure how you can say it is proof when even the study says it is a potential.

I am not against masks in schools btw, not at all. And definitely lots of cleaning and hand washing!

@Jrobhatch29

I read that study earlier. Its very thorough. Does not confirm airborne transmission though. It is mainly about fomites. It even says:

"Our study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination around COVID-19 patients is extensive, and hospital IPC procedures should account for the risk of fomite, and potentially airborne, transmission of the virus."

Also, they could only replicate the virue they found in cell cultures in some of the samples, not all.

"The observation of viral replication in cell culture for some of the samples confirms the potential infectious nature of the recovered virus."

Potential, not confirmed.

I’m afraid you’re wrong. Read the paper again. Airborne transmission was very much confirmed. Multiple places within the paper, but this is as good as any.

“58.3% of hallway air samples indicate that virus-containing particles were being transported from the rooms to the hallway during sampling activities. It is likely that the positive air samples in the hallway were caused by viral aerosol particles transported or resuspended by personnel exiting the room. Finally, personal air samplers worn by sampling personnel were all positive for SARS-CoV-2, despite the absence of cough by most patients while sampling personnel were present.”

All personal air samplers tested positive. And if you read the study design you’ll see the reason they emphasise fomites is because some of the surfaces tested were never touched. Infectious virus was carried onto them via the air system.

Thank you Climbdad for continuing to post despite the science deniers.

The thread isn’t actually designed to scare. It’s designed to inform

It’s designed to lecture people. You don’t see other posters as other informed people you can engage with and learn from; you see them as the uninformed masses who need to be scared into Taking This Seriously.

Should you ever wish to actually discuss things though, give us a shout.

@Keepdistance

Obviously low vit d is a big factor. I read when they gave higher doses to children it did prevent a few cases of flu in kids.

Bear in mind though nasal flu is a live (might be attenuated?) vax so people could catch that from kids i think. And could weaken kids immune system for a few days.

Flu jab is usually only about £15 from Boots.
I think gps being a bit more easy going regarding antibiotics would help too.
For my mum and dc they have ended up at ooh or hospital when not given the AB.
Of the outbreaks at schools there are lots of non covid ones so those are still spreading and causing covid symptoms.
The buggest help would be everyone staying home even with just sore throat or runny nose as even if that isnt covid it could cause another person a cough or temp so thats days of for lots of people and testing. Same with d&v symptoms as sometimes kids with covid will only get that.

Antibiotics don't treat viruses.

No you are wrong climbdad. That might show it can travel in the air, but if it cannot be cultured, it is a dead virus and cannot infect anyone.
A virus testing positive is not the same as being viable.

I agree it is a really good piece of work. But nowhere in it does it declare finite proof of viable airborne transmission. When the paper carefully uses the word "potentially" you dont get to come on here and present it as proof

You don’t see other posters as other informed people you can engage with and learn from; you see them as the uninformed masses who need to be scared

Well, to be honest, it's amazing how dim we can be as a race.

Erm obviously not. My dc had ear infections and uti. Mum had chest infections. I mean gps need to be more open to prescribing. Dc had had multiple ear infection ear pain and temperature but they couldnt see the infection so no AB so ended up rushed to hospital as started turning blue and having rigors. Ended up with burst ear drums multiple times and a new heart murmur.

"Two of the samples, cell culture indicated some evidence for the presence of replication competent virus (Fig. 2): an air sample from the NQU hallway on day 8 and the windowsill from NQU A on day 5"

Only two samples were viable virus. And it does not say if there was enough particles to cause an infection.
Virus particles were captured in air samples, yes, and tested positive on a pcr test. However only 2 of the samples were live virus. So in the other samples it was dead virus. So like I said, POTENTIAL to cause an airborne infection, not proof

@Keepdistance

Erm obviously not. My dc had ear infections and uti. Mum had chest infections. I mean gps need to be more open to prescribing. Dc had had multiple ear infection ear pain and temperature but they couldnt see the infection so no AB so ended up rushed to hospital as started turning blue and having rigors. Ended up with burst ear drums multiple times and a new heart murmur.

Antibiotics are for bacterial infections. Not viruses.

Oh sorry @Keepdistance. I misread when you said "erm obviously not" as you saying they are for virusea. My mistake, apologies

@ClimbDad thank you for posting. Am following.
Hopefully the antagonisers will piss off soon

@GoldenOmber

The thread isn’t actually designed to scare. It’s designed to inform

It’s designed to lecture people. You don’t see other posters as other informed people you can engage with and learn from; you see them as the uninformed masses who need to be scared into Taking This Seriously.

Should you ever wish to actually discuss things though, give us a shout.

Agreed.

Thank you Jrobhatch29.

A little knowledge can be dangerous thing.

Well, to be honest, it's amazing how dim we can be as a race

Is every adult supposed to be able to understand all the ins and outs of microbiology?

I don't live in the UK so I don't quite understand how the UK government is handling covid, but we have an eminence as Health Secretary and another eminence in charge of control of the pandemic who also gives very clear and easy to follow conferences every night, and there has been no mention of a risk of airborne transmission yet.

I'm always happy to read studies, I have become increasingly concerned about some aspects of the virus, so will place mark.