On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:56:46 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 09:40:28 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 28.03.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Charles Ellson:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 14:18:20 +0100, Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 03:08:15 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 23:23:32 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 22:15:19 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 21:54:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 20:46:35 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:53:01 +0100, Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 15:15:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1o8bo$p0d$1@dont-email.me>, at 23:41:44 on Sat, 26 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <atoe0djbfzse$.dlg@example1357.net>, at 19:37:01 on Thu, 24
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mar 2022, mechanic <mechanic@example.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 11:06:55 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I first saw them at scale in a pub which had just reopened with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringent Covid precautions. Tables separated, pre-booked only, one-way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system, one person in toilets at a time, table service only etc. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not at all clear what protection they gave either the waitresses or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> customers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That was when we were fed the 'droplets' theory, science is now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reluctantly moving to the aerosol idea where earlier instructions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean surfaces and wash hands have given way to more emphasis on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ventilation and effective masks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose I always did think it was mainly transmitted by the smaller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> droplets know trendily known as aerosols, rather than spit and sneeze.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still wouldn't want a Covid person to spit in my face though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Breathing in your direction might be worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2metres, 30 seconds, and both masked, shouldn't be an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, probably not, but nor would spitting in those circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saliva is generally a far better carrier of infection if it lands on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> targer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that's true of Covid? It's an airborne virus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't just airborne. The virus is present in saliva, mucous and
>>>>>>>>>>>> other bodily secretions. The difference with saliva (in original form)
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the practical need for more direct transmission from infection
>>>>>>>>>>>> source to entry route (e.g. snogging, spitting on target etc.) than is
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed with aerosols which generally require a relatively longer
>>>>>>>>>>>> presence to enable infection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would virus particles present in saliva get into a potential victim's
>>>>>>>>>>> airway?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your airway starts at your nose and mouth. Coughing and sneezing can
>>>>>>>>>> cause a heavier and more concentrated stream of saliva than you get
>>>>>>>>>> with an aerosol.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The virus can spread from an infected person?s mouth or nose in small
>>>>>>>>>> liquid particles when they cough, sneeze, speak, sing or breathe.
>>>>>>>>>> Another person can then contract the virus when infectious particles
>>>>>>>>>> that pass through the air are inhaled at short range (this is often
>>>>>>>>>> called short-range aerosol or short-range airborne transmission) or if
>>>>>>>>>> infectious particles come into direct contact with the eyes, nose, or
>>>>>>>>>> mouth (droplet transmission)."
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A mask wearer is presumably reasonably well protected against droplets
>>>>>>>>> landing on their mouth or nostrils and then breathing in the particles. Is
>>>>>>>>> there any evidence that the virus can be transmitted via the eyes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your eyes drain internally to your nose via the nasolacrimal duct;
>>>>>>>> infection via the eye itself is less common. Eye protection is
>>>>>>>> standard kit for ambulance and first aid personnel dealing with
>>>>>>>> potential COVID patients.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that precaution based on actual evidence of risk from Covid, or simple
>>>>>>> (sensible) caution all infections?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The eye and associated areas have been regarded as a viable route of
>>>>>> infection for over a century :-
>>>>>> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/220430
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing we do know is that a lot of the often misinformed
>>>>>>> Covid precautions have at least protected against other illnesses in the
>>>>>>> last two years. For example, all that hand sanitisng didn't do much to
>>>>>>> block Covid but probably reduced food poisoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without experimenting you have no proof for that. COVID was known to
>>>>>> persist longer on non-absorbent surfaces (e.g. handrails, door handles
>>>>>> etc.) while alcohol is efficient in destroying membranes that hold
>>>>>> viruses together as well as being a long-proven general antiseptic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking what actual research has been done about how Covid is
>>>>> spread. Or are they just assuming it's similar to other
>>>>> diseases (when we know it's not)?
>>>>>
>>>> There is plenty of research material available but as a novel disease
>>>> it is currently more heavily based on observation and experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hand sanitising doesn't work when people don't practise it and I have
>>>>>> been around long enough to see that there are plenty of people who are
>>>>>> best described as selfish filthy bastards when it comes to considering
>>>>>> community hygeine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree that hand sanitising is good for public health, but just
>>>>> question whether it does much to slow the spread
>>>>> of Covid specifically. Has anyone done any actual research? They
>>>>> certainly hadn't when the advice was first given.
>>>>>
>>>> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/897598/S0574_NERVTAG-EMG_paper_-_hand_hygiene_010720_Redacted.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Note that it can be inferred that standard door handles on
>>>> manually-opened doors, supermarket trolley/basket handles etc. are an
>>>> infection risk which simultaneous use of sanitisation should be
>>>> effective against.
>>>
>>> Wait a second: "hand sanitation is effective in reducing respiratory
>>> diseases". This is *not* research specific to COVID.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that in early 2020, hand hygiene was one of the
>>> "obvious things to do that might reduce transmission" but that by
>>> mid-2020 still there was no evigence of hand hygiene having an impact on
>>> transmission of COVID.
>>>
>>> Out of the three known pathways of transmitting respiratory diseases
>>> (smear infection via hand - eye or hand - mouth, droplet infection and
>>> aerosol infection) it is clear that for COVID, the dominant way of
>>> transmission is aerosol infection; it is not measurable whether smear
>>> infection is relevant for 10% of the infections, for 0.1% of infections
>>> or not at all.
>>
>> Thanks, that confirms what I suspected.
>>
>> Something noticeable in the UK is that the public authorities haven't
>> updated their (incorrect) advice on Covid
>> transmission, nor the list of Covid symptoms from the early days of the
>> pandemic. The ZOE studies have shown how out of
>> date these have become.
>>
>> For example, I had a shingles vaccination appointment recently, and got
>> sent an on-line questionnaire about whether I
>> was exhibiting any of what were obviously meant to be Covid symptoms. But
>> they were all out of date, and not at all
>> representative of the then-current Covid symptoms. It didn't even ask if
>> I'd had a recent positive Covid test, nor
>> request me to take a (free) LFT before showing up for the appointment. I
>> wonder if it's any better in Germany?
>>
>
>I’ve just had an invite to a clinical trial for a new vaccine tailored
>against Omicron. You get that vaccine or one of the existing ones. The snag
>is to qualify you haven’t had to have tested positive since November.
>They’d better hurry up getting back to folk otherwise they won’t find
>anyone left!
>
>“We are looking for volunteers to take part in a study investigating
>whether an experimental booster vaccine can provide better protection
>against the COVID-19 Omicron variant when compared to a booster dose of
>Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, Spikevax. The trial is sponsored by Moderna and
>run by our NIHR Patient Recruitment Centre
>
>With different strains of COVID-19, there is an urgent need to develop
>vaccination plans that will provide greater protection. A booster vaccine
>that protects against COVID-19 variants, including the Omicron variant,
>would be a crucial public health tool to help curb the pandemic.
>
>Participation in this trial lasts up to 13 months and includes phone calls,
>and up to six visits to the trial site. Participants will receive a single
>dose of either the experimental booster vaccine or the already authorised
>vaccine, Spikevax.

Sounds like they're looking for a release in 2023?