(1/8) Important study demonstrating “opportunistic airborne” transmission of #SARSCoV2 in just five minutes at a restaurant in South Korea, confirmed by CCTV.
Air conditioning may have enabled infection over a distance of more than 4 metres to occur. jkms.org/DOIx.php?id=10…
(2/8) In this study, #COVID19 was detected in a person (case A) on 17 June.
The investigators discovered case A had visited the same restaurant as a previous confirmed case (case B) on 12 June.
It was determined case B had probably infected case A.
(3/8) All the people who came into contact with case B at the restaurant were then tested.
One more case (case C) was detected among these people.
In total, 2 of the 13 people (15%) who had been in the restaurant at the same time as case B were infected.
(4/8) The restaurant was 9 x 10 m in size, & had no windows. Two air conditioning units were mounted on the ceiling.
Case A entered at 15:57, and finished their meal before case B entered at 17:15. Case B sat 6.5 m away.
Cases A and B talked with their companions without masks.
(5/8) At 17:20, case A left the restaurant.
Two minutes later at 17:22, case C entered the restaurant and sat 5 m away from case B.
21 minutes later, case B left the restaurant.
(6/8) Environmental samples were taken, of which all 39 tested negative.
Air conditioning may have helped respiratory droplets and/or aerosols travel over a distance of 4.8 metres and greater from case B to cases A and C.
Case A had only 5 minutes exposure.
(7/8) The authors conclude that transmission over distances greater than 2 metres is possible, and that contact tracing definitions should be updated to reflect this.
(8/8) The authors also write that tables in indoor restaurants should be separated by more than 2 metres.
Masks should only be removed while eating, and conversations during meals should be avoided.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(1/9) #LongCovid is common. In this study of 180 Faroe Islanders (of whom only 8 were hospitalised), 53% had at least 1 symptom after an average of 4 months (minimum follow-up 45 days).
(2/9) All 187 people who tested positive for #COVID19 between 3 March and 22 April were invited to participate in this study, and 180 took part. Participants were followed up (by telephone) for 45-215 days (average: 125 days).
The average age was 39 years, and 54% were female.
(3/9) In the initial phase of illness, 8 people (4.4%) were asymptomatic.
At the last assessment, just under half (47%) were symptom-free. One-third (33.3%; n=60) had 1 or 2 symptoms, and 19.4% (n=35) had >=3 symptoms.
Two asymptomatic people subsequently reported symptoms.
There are likely many reasons, but one intriguing possibility is some people might be biologically predisposed to release more aerosols when they speak.
(2/6) First, in this study researchers showed that for everyone, the amount of particles that are released increase with the loudness of speech.
This is why activities such as singing pose a particularly high risk for transmission of #SARSCoV2.
(3/6) Researchers then measured the amount of particles released per second when participants pronounced the vowel “A”, and when they read aloud in English.
Participants released between 1 and 14 particles per second. The average number was 4.
Study showing that children can be infected with #SARSCoV2, but still test negative.
Two parents infected their 3 children, who tested negative 11 times (NP swab PCR test). Antibody blood tests were also negative, but saliva antibody tests were positive. nature.com/articles/s4146…
In this study, 2 parents from Melbourne attended an interstate wedding without their children, during which they were infected. They returned home and developed symptoms 3 days later.
Seven days after this, 2 of their 3 children developed symptoms.
The oldest child (male, 9 years) developed respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms.
(1/4) Study of #SARSCoV2 antibody prevalence in primary and high school children from Belgium, comparing a hotspot (Alken) with a less affected region (Pelt).
When community transmission is high, young and older children are equally affected. sciensano.be/sites/default/…
(2/4) This was a study of primary school children & those in the first 3 years of high school from two regions in Belgium.
Alken was a hotspot in the first wave (18.2 cases per 1,000 inhabitants), while Pelt was less affected (3.3/1,000). Blood was collected September - October.
(3/4) In Alken (the hotspot), antibody prevalence was similar in children (13.3%) and adolescents (15.4%).
In Pelt, 8.9% of high school children had antibodies, while none of the primary school children did.
Important news on the cross-reactive antibody story. Children and teenagers are more likely to have them than adults, which might explain why #COVID19 is less severe in this age group.
Children & adults are similarly likely to be infected though, so they aren’t fully protective.
While these cross-reactive antibodies might possibly explain why most children generally don’t become seriously ill with #COVID19, it doesn’t mean that herd immunity is any easier to reach.
They probably reduce disease severity at best. Children aren’t immune to infection.
There’s also the possibility that these cross-reactive antibodies have nothing to do with why children have mild illness.
Instead, they might make illness worse in people who have them. For example, through a phenomenon known as original antigenic sin. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_…
(1/7) Important prospective study of household transmission by CDC, suggesting children and adults are similarly likely to transmit #SARSCoV2. The household secondary attack rate was at least 35%, and 18% of cases were asymptomatic. cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6…
(2/7) In this study, 101 households (each with one index patient) from Tennessee and Wisconsin were followed for at least 7 days. A total of 191 household contacts of these index patients completed symptom diaries, and self-collected nasal or saliva specimens which were tested.
(3/7) None of the 191 household contacts had symptoms on the first day of the study, although some tested positive indicating they had recently been infected.
Including these contacts, the secondary attack rate was 53%. Excluding these contacts, it was 35%.