Of course, what has been “thought” about isn’t necessarily true. Provable or correct. “thought” an individual act or product of thinking; something (such as an opinion or belief) in the mind ; a considerationThoughts don’t always align with fact or reality. Often thoughts are delusional.; something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated Sometime thoughts are worse then delusional- Particularly when “thoughts” are deployed as weapons of deception- Witting or unwitting. And they become extremely harmful. CBC-Surfaces 'not a significant risk' for COVID-19
This is an excerpt from Second Opinion, a weekly roundup of eclectic and under-the-radar health and medical science news emailed to subscribers..
Disinfecting groceries, wiping down packages, cordoning off playgrounds.
While those approaches to avoiding COVID-19 infection became commonplace early on in the pandemic, the virus may not transmit as easily on surfaces as was originally thought
Some (experts from a variety of disciplines) warn the focus on surfaces has been overblown.
Emanuel Goldman, a microbiology professor at the New Jersey Medical School of Rutgers University, said in an article published in The Lancet journal earlier this week that the risk of COVID-19 infection from surfaces is "exaggerated."
Excerpt from the Lancet
A clinically significant risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission by fomites (inanimate surfaces or objects) has been assumed on the basis of studies that have little resemblance to real-life scenarios.
The longest survival (6 days) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) on surfaces was done by placing a very large initial virus titre sample (107 infectious virus particles) on the surface being tested.1 Another study that claimed survival of 4 days used a similarly large sample (106 infectious virus particles) on the surface.2 A report by van Doremalen and colleagues found survival of both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 of up to 2 days (on surfaces) and 3 days (in aerosols generated in the laboratory), but again with a large inoculum (105–107 infectious virus particles per mL in aerosols, 104 infectious virus particles on surfaces).3 Yet another study found long survival (5 days) of human coronavirus 229E on surfaces with what I would still consider a substantially large viral load (103 plaque-forming units) in a cell lysate.4 However, using a cell lysate rather than purified or semipurified virus might enable initial viral proliferation or protection from the effects of the sample drying out.
None of these studies present scenarios akin to real-life situations. Although I did not find measurements of coronavirus quantities in aerosol droplets from patients, the amount of influenza virus RNA in aerosols has been measured, with a concentration equivalent to 10–100 viral particles in a droplet, with even fewer infectious influenza virus particles capable of growth in a plaque assay.5 By contrast, one study found human coronavirus 229E to survive for only 3 h, and human coronavirus OC43 to survive for 1 h, after drying on various surfaces including aluminum, sterile latex surgical gloves, and sterile sponges.6 In a study in which the authors tried to mimic actual conditions in which a surface might be contaminated by a patient, no viable SARS-CoV was detected on surfaces.7
"This is not a significant risk," he told CBC News. "Not even a measurable risk."Goldman (microbiology professor) said the evidence for infection from surfaces was based on lab experiments that were unrealistic when compared to real life situations and used extremely large amounts of virus to test if it could survive over extended periods of time.
The lab is not the real world. Same as a hospital operating room (masks) do not represent the real world. Why, oh why can't people understand these most basic ideas?
Linsey Marr, an expert in the transmission of viruses at Virginia Tech who has studied the survival of COVID-19 on surfaces, said that while it's possible people could get infected from surfaces, it's still unclear if it's actually happening.
"I think the thinking has changed," Marr said, adding the perceived risk of transmission from contaminated surfaces is lower than it was earlier in the pandemic when not much was known about the coronavirus.She said in order to be infected with COVID-19 from a surface, a person would have to transfer it to their fingers where it would need to survive long enough to enter the body by touching the eyes, nose or mouth.
"We know that virus can survive [on surfaces] and then the question is, can people pick those up and transfer them into their respiratory tract?" Marr said. "You have to have a lot of virus on there to cause infections."
The average person infected with COVID-19 also isn't typically shedding large amounts of the virus at any given time, noted infectious disease specialist Dr. Zain Chagla, an associate professor at McMaster University in Hamilton.
Isn't that an interesting statement from Dr Zain Chagla a noted infectious disease specialist- "THE AVERAGE PERSON INFECTED WITH COVID 19 IS NOT SHEDDING LARGE AMOUNTS OF THE VIRUS AT ANY GIVEN TIME" Yes, I'm emphasizing in capitals the statement from the infectious disease specialist because it is completely opposite to the presentation via the fear porn/terror inducing media. Alt and msm.
"Viruses aren't that environmentally hardy," he added."They're built to infect humans. They're built to infect cells. As soon as they leave the human host and enter the environment, they become more and more unstable."
Viruses are not environmentally hardy- They do what they do and not much more. They are not designed to survive outside of their host.
Eugene Chudnovsky, a professor of physics at the City University of New York whose research has focused on the spread of the virus, said the threat of infection from a surface like a doorknob really depends on the conditions to which it was exposed."If there are just a few people touching it in an hour, it's very unlikely it will contain the infective dose of the virus," he said.
Disinfecting surfaces 'not as necessary as we thought'
One of the reasons the evidence for COVID-19 infection from surfaces is lacking is because it's difficult to track through contact tracing."You can start asking people about conversations they had and places they were, but when you start asking them about surfaces they've touched, it gets much, much harder to really pin it down," said Erin Bromage, an associate biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth who researches infectious diseases.
"They're probably associated with a few percentage of transmissions, probably at the highest, which is a lot lower than what we find, say, for influenza – but it seems to be not a major driver with this particular pathogen."
Influenza more likely to transmit via surfaces... considering the near non existence of surface transferal for covid, it's not worth getting to excited about influenza virus transmission in this manner either- wash your hands!
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidelines on surface transmission of COVID-19 in May, saying it "may be possible" a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface that has the virus on it but it's not "the main way the virus spreads."
"There's just a growing narrative that the degree of transmission through fomites is probably less than what was earlier anticipated," said Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease physician at Toronto General Hospital.
"The vast majority of transmission seems to be through close contact with an infected individual, primarily in an indoor setting."
Close contact. Not passing someone on the sidewalk. Close contact in a closed setting like a hospital room. A room in long term care or a nursing home. Same as would be the case with influenza- Except year after year the influenza and other coronavirus circulate and life continues on.
Bromage, who wrote a viral blog post in May shared by millions explaining the places people are most at risk of COVID-19 infection, said the risk of transmission from surfaces on things brought into the home is "quite low" in countries like the U.S. and Canada."It's probably something to be aware of," he said, "but something that we don't need to focus a lot of anxiety and attention on."
Chagla said the initial focus on surface contamination also sparked a common practice that could be downright harmful: wearing latex gloves while running errands or shopping."Going to the grocery store wearing a pair of gloves is probably not the cleanest thing to be doing," he said.
And yet I still to this day see people driving and shopping wearing their filthy latex gloves, while wearing their masks of course..... (virtue signalling) As they remove their masks with those filthy gloves thereby spreading more filth further and wider then need be!
While health-care workers and food service staff wear gloves for infection control reasons, Chagla stressed they're used for specific purposes, and short periods of time.
Wearing gloves for extended stretches while touching various objects can lead to cross-contamination the longer you're wearing them, he said, which winds up being less helpful than just washing or sanitizing your bare hands regularly.
Marr thinks the guidance on children avoiding playgrounds has been "misguided" throughout the pandemic.
"Playgrounds are probably one of the safer places for kids to congregate, if they have to congregate," she said. "And the reason why is that sunlight kills off the virus pretty effectively. So if it is on surfaces, I don't think it's going to last very long."
Chagla said at this point in the pandemic, there's no "good reason" why playgrounds should remain closed, given the combination of sunlight and open-air ventilation making them a relatively low-risk activity.
"From the science, what we know is that certainly young people, children, are less likely to have more severe consequences if they do get infected with the virus," he said.
"It also appears that in terms of transmission, young children — at least in some of the studies I've seen — do not appear to be as efficient or effective in terms of transmitting the virus to others."
Goldman said misguided policy decisions from governments and businesses pushed him to speak out about the lack of evidence for COVID-19 risk from surfaces."It's not that the data were wrong, but they were not the right data. It was not data that applied to the actual situations that are relevant."
Goldman said these policy decisions can be "counterproductive" because they can "dilute" effective prevention measures like physical distancing and wearing a mask (the science on masks does not demonstrate effectiveness) to stop the spread of COVID-19.
"It's actually harmful to have the wrong interpretation of the data," he said.
It's way past time to say and understand the emperor has NO clothes