General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumssltrib:How the coronavirus spreads in those everyday places we visit
The Salt Lake Tribune
By Andy Larsen
It hasnt even been five months since health officials in Wuhan, China, reported unusual pneumonia cases to the World Health Organization.
But those five months have been the most active in the history of epidemiology. Since that report, weve learned so much about the coronavirus. One of the most important lessons? How the disease is spread.
In particular, so-called superspreading events seem to be a major cause of infections. One London School of Hygiene analysis suggested that 80% of the secondary transmissions were caused by just 10% of infected people. In other words, if you want to avoid getting COVID-19, one of your major focuses should be avoiding a superspreading event.
So as Utahns leave their homes and reengage with society, we thought now would be a good time to scour the research to note where these events have been documented and where they havent. We can also learn about the circumstances that led to each superspreading event, and do our best to avoid them.
The result is the following compendium, in alphabetical order, of public places and the lessons we can learn. . . .
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/05/23/your-guide-how/
The article does a great job of breaking down how the virus is transmitted in everyday settings. They pull from studies and contact tracing that has occurred from documented cases.
murielm99
(30,736 posts)CrispyQ
(36,461 posts)and only going out for essentials. Time to start using all those art supplies I bought.
raging moderate
(4,304 posts)I have a teeth-cleaning appointment on June 4th. They have sent an email about safety. Are people getting their teeth cleaned right now? If we don't get them cleaned now, what is the likelihood that it will be safer later in the year?
LisaL
(44,973 posts)But how about a guy with minor symptoms, who went to a funeral for a friend of the family, and a birthday party for a member of his family, and infected people at both places resulting in 3 people dying?
Like the article said, don't be that guy.
Igel
(35,300 posts)The first case is well documented. 'Nuff said.
The second instance isn't built on a single case but rests firmly on the assumption that fomites easily spread the virus. You are infected, sneeze on a doorknob, and anybody who comes along and touches the doorknob has a good risk of contracting the disease. This is a wonderful idea and allows for a lot of caution and protective practices.
Sadly, there's no evidence that the virus spreads much that way. It's a nice-sounding assumption, but that claim to fame rests just about entirely on sounding nice and on its being an assumption. It's a good thing for scaring people, so there's that.
The third instance, early on, looks solid and at the time led to the conclusion that's given. That was before it was known how easily asymptomatic "sufferers" could spread the disease and before it was known how many asymptomatics there were. There could have been the one spreader on the bus. There could have been one or two others. A few days later when the spreader of notoriety was identified there'd be no way, at the time at least, of identifying others as 2 days into their infection when they road the bus.
In other words, that example's been undermined, but unless you stop and think about what was known then (and built into the analysis) and what's known now (that shreds some of what was built into the analysis) you'd miss that. Epidemiologists have been things to do than explain why previous findings are wrong, esp. if those previous findings still encourage people to do wise things.
Often we actually know less than we think.