🌊This isn't Wave 2 for SA-it's a cluster. And talking about it as if it is the start of Wave 2 may induce fear rather than caution and risk reduction activities.
Qld dealt with a cluster recently without statewide lockdown. Can be done.
🫂Occurrence of a new cluster of transmission in the community after months of none also isn't "inevitable", *unless* we agree that we can't manage quarantine at the border.
✋2020 suggests we can, but that there can be small mistakes which lead to high consequence outcomes.
The other form of "inevitable": don't leave public thinking that despite daily population testing, SARS-CoV-2 can hide then magic 🪄out of thin air. It can't. It always has a source & a given % with serious disease we're likely to see, unless we fail to test/test enough
A rough guide to how things stand ahead of today's updates from @SAHealth
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wonder if we'll ever really discuss eye protection for the public?
Pros/Cons.
Useful? Over-the-top?
So many things still have so little actual evidence to makes these calls.
An yet you see images like this...
Ugh.
Small studies have rarely found (old links):
😷SARS-CoV-2 RNA in tears & conjunctival secretion in 1 of 30 COVID-19 cases doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25…
😷2 of 72 COVID-19 cases with conjunctivitis had viral RNA detected in a conjunctival swab medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
And yes. There is⏩actual evidence⏪ that small particle *aerosols* (SPA; not droplets-although I can't find the specific SPA size range in this paper) infect & result in inflammation and can generate ARDS (highlighted below were SPA infected) in primates ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-…
Some studies don't adequately discriminate larger droplets from SPAs in their "aerosol" so which was the more likely, or whether both were equally likely, cannot be determined and so the precise route remains unclear
e.g. nature.com/articles/s4158… and sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
"I am not a biologist, but have been discussing this article with a university student who is studying the field. He is questioning whether a PCR test can distinguish two viruses which differ in segments that have a few different base pairs but are of the same length"
-puts aside
I love the quality of expert who comes to comment on my blog.
"There are several millions of different viruses, but we only have a little more than 10.000 full genomes..."
-I know some head just exploded
If there's a link provided, it points to an Emergency Use Only instruction document for the CDC's SARS-CoV-2 PCR (July here, may be other versions) in which there's a comment: testing had to use a viral sequence made in the lab because didn't have *quantified* virus isolates
This whole misunderstanding (I'm being generous) hinges on the word "quantified". CDC researchers *had* cultured virus (see 👇) in January & March, but they didn't have a preparation of virus in which they knew number of infectious particles present. That's the quantified bit.
When you know how many infectious particles present, you can determine the limit of the sensitivity of the RT-PCR, in those same terms. Which is nice but not essential.
You can also do this using the same viral sequence target, prepared & quantified in the lab as RNA. They did 👇
1580-1350 BC
An Egyptian stele portrays a priest with a withered leg, suggesting highly infectious polio has existed for thousands of years.
1916 AD
A polio epidemic on New York, USA.
The 1900s saw epidemics of polio worldwide
2020
After extensive global vaccination programs, only a handful of wild cases can be found. Africa is declared free of wild poliovirus transmission.
Regions that include 90% of the world's population are now free of wild polio.