The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

There’s a chance that by the time the season starts, the general public will respond to all of the studies showing that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea of airborne transmission of this virus...
That could lead to masks going away (and perhaps less people being called idiots...but I doubt that last part)

No airborne transmission of the virus?

Can you post your Fox News or Alex Jones sources to back your claim?

(05-09-2020 11:55 AM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 10:14 AM)the_blazerman Wrote:  I would hope UAB athletics wouldn't be in the business of instructing people what to do like Dr Saag apparently is.

If you have a UAB bandana, then use it as a mask.

You're a moron. Dr. Saag is not only a renowned infectious disease Dr. and virologist, he has actually had Covid-19. He knows more about this disease than you ever will. Inject some Lysol and you'll be fine, right?

Jesus.

If we have a football season, and if I choose to attend games, I will wear a mask. If you're in crowds you're an idiot if you don't, or you just like playing Covid roulette.

You can get a mask made from a UAB bandanna if you have one, or you can get a UAB patch and sew it onto the mask.

Or you're someone who has already had the virus with no adverse affects...

(05-09-2020 07:51 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  Can you post your Fox News or Alex Jones sources to back your claim?

well...i'll assume youre not trying to be an ass and youre asking a serious question.
since you seem certain, i'll also assume that you have a significant amount of education on the subject. that's the only reason that i'll point out that i keep up with every bit of literature i can on the topic, none of which comes from media outlets.
i do so because i'm not only a physician, but im the president of the largest private practice anesthesiology group in my state.
the following is a list of "talking points" recently put out by the infectious disease department of the largest hospital that we cover (the largest private hospital in my state).

it doesn't translate well to "cut and paste"--but some of the sources you asked for are listed at the end

if you're sincerely interested, i'm sure you can follow. if it is too difficult to follow due to the poor format, feel free to PM me and we can find a better format to transfer that data.



Does the transmission of COVID-19 mirror that of other respiratory viruses (thus droplet + contact
precautions are protective) or that of true airborne agents (i.e. measles, varicella) which require
use of N-95 or PAPR/CAPR?
Background:
• Respiratory infections are transmitted by droplets of different sizes. Most droplet particles are > 5um and
readily fall to nearby surfaces. Some are smaller (<5 um = “droplet nuclei”). Cough produces droplets, 99% of
which are >8um. (ref 4)
• Droplet transmission occurs when a person is in close contact with someone who is shedding virus, usually
through cough or sneeze. The mucosa (mouth/nose) and conjunctiva are exposed to these respiratory
droplets. Droplets fall to surfaces quickly and transmission can also occur by contact with these surfaces in the
immediate vicinity (person touches the surface, then touches their eyes/mouth/nose).
• Airborne transmission requires microbes within very small droplets (< 5um = droplet nuclei) to remain viable
and to disperse over great distances.
So how do we determine if COVID-19 (caused by SARS-CoV-2) is spread by droplet or by
airborne transmission?
• WHO states COVID-19 is transmitted through respiratory droplets and contact and “in an analysis of 75,465
COVID-19 cases in China, airborne transmission was not reported”.(ref 7) Per CDC: Although the spread of
SARS-CoV-2 is primarily via respiratory droplets, “the contribution of small respirable particles to close
proximity transmission is currently uncertain. Airborne transmission from person-to-person over long
distances is unlikely.
• The concern for airborne persists in part because of reports in literature showing that viral nucleic acid can be
found in air samples. (ref 3) This has been shown in the past for other viruses (influenza, RSV, adenovirus,
rhinovirus) yet these are not spread by airborne route. In addition, the ability to detect viral nucleic acid, or
even viable virus in the air, does not answer the question: Is airborne transmission the mode of spread in
the community and in the routine hospital setting (non-aerosol generating procedure environment)?
Data available now to address that question:
A) Epidemiology of COVID-19 has been studied in two careful contact investigations. The attack rate and number of
secondary cases have been described and are compared below to pathogens that are transmitted through
airborne routes.
1) US study of first 10 patients with travel-related COVID-19; tracked symptomatic secondary attack rates in 445
contacts.(ref 1)
a) Household contacts – 2 of 19 + secondary attack rate of 10.5%
b) Community contacts – 0 of 204
c) Health care personnel – 0 of 222
2) China study of 4950 close contacts which included PCR testing (qood for 14 days) and symptom assessment.
They identified 129 cases in the 4950 contacts – overall attack rate of 2.6% (ref 2)
a) Household contacts (96 of 4950)– 10.2%
b) Community contacts – public transport vehicles – 0.1%
c) Health care personnel (7 of 679)– 1.0%
003902aa3-1 04/20 CS
3) What is R0 for COVID-19? R0 is the number of secondary cases from a single infected individual in a susceptible population.
a) Best indicator in COVID-19 – Diamond Princess experience: 2.3
Comparative data with well characterized airborne pathogens – varicella and measles: Pathogen Secondary household attack rate R0
varicella
85%
10
measles
>90%
12 - 18
COVID-19
10.5%
2.3
This data shows the transmission patterns of COVID-19 are similar to those of other respiratory viruses and not to airborne pathogens.
B) Studies from SARS in 2003 (caused by SARS-CoV-1) can also inform us about transmission risk.
• A case-control study in 5 hospitals showed that surgical and N-95 masks were equally effective in preventing HCW infection. In addition, 30% of non-infected staff never used masks, yet still were not infected.
• These findings support that transmission was not airborne.
Does N-95 provide better protection for droplet transmitted pathogens than surgical mask?
• In four controlled trials, HCW (total 5,549 individuals) were randomized to N95 or medical masks. Use of medical masks did not increase laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection risk (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90 – 1.25). (ref 8)
• In a study on seasonal coronavirus (not COVID-19) using PCR testing, 4.3% of medical mask nursing group had confirmed infection compared with 5.7% in N-95 mask nursing group. (ref 5)
• Our PPE approach of surgical mask use + face shield + gown/gloves except in the setting of true aerosol generating procedures is science based and allows for rational use of PPE.
003902aa3-1 04/20 CS
References:
(1) Burke RM, Midgley CM, Dratch A, Fenstersheib M, Haupt T, Holshue M,et al. Active monitoring of persons exposed to patients with confirmed COVID-19 — United States, January–February 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6909e1external icon. (2) Luo, Lei; Liu, Dan; Liao, Xin-long; Wu, Xian-bo; Jing, Qin-long; Zheng, Jia-zhen; Liu, Fang-hua; Yang, Shi-gui; Bi, Bi; Li, Zhi-hao; Liu, Jian-ping; Song, Wei-qi; Zhu, Wei; Wang, Zheng-he; Zhang, Xi-ru; Chen, Pei-liang; Liu, Hua-min; Cheng, Xin; Cai, Miao-chun; Huang, Qing-mei; Yang, Pei; Yang, Xin-fen; Huang, Zhi gang; Tang, Jin-ling; Ma, Yu; Mao, Chen. 2020. Modes of contact and risk of transmission in COVID-19 among close contacts. medRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042606 (3) Santarpia, Joshua; Rivera, Danielle; Herrera, Vicki; Morwitzer, Jane; Creager, Hannah; Santarpia, George; Crown, Kevin; Brett-Major, David; Schnaubelt, Elizabeth; Broadhurst, M. Jana; Larler, James; Reid. St. Patrick; Lowe, John. March 2020. Transmission Potential of SARS-Co-V-2 in Viral Shedding Observed at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. medRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.23.20039446
(4) Seto, W H; Tsang, D; Hung, R W; Ching, T Y; Ng, T K; Ho M; Ho, L M; Peiris, J S M; and Advisors of Expert SARS group of Hospital Authority. (2003). Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in precention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The Lancet, Volume 361, Issue 9368, p 1519-1520. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13168-6
(5) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Medicine doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-0622-5 http://www.sccm.org/SurvivingSepsisCampa...s/COVID-19
(6) World Health Organization. (2020, March 29). Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommmendations. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentari...mendations
(7) World Health Organization. (2020, March 27). Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommmendations. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/commentari...mendations
(8) Youlin Long Tengyue Hu Liqin Liu Rui Chen Qiong Guo Liu Yang Yifan Cheng Jin Huang Liang Du. March 2020. Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Wiley Online Library doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381

(05-09-2020 07:43 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  No airborne transmission of the virus?

i fully acknowledge that one must understand the difference between airborne transmission and droplet/contact transmission to understand my post.
what that has to do with Fox News or Alex Jones, I'm not sure.
I'm not even sure who Alex Jones is. I had a medical school classmate by that name, but I don't think that is who you're talking about

Sorry I figured you were in the blazerman camp..

(05-09-2020 08:22 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  Sorry I figured you were in the blazerman camp..

he's one of only 3 posters on this board that i've ever put on "ignore"

He’s the worst

It was my understanding that the primary reason for wearing the medical masks or bandannas was to protect others from your coughs and sneezes. They only provide little, if any protection, from someone in close proximity projecting their sneeze or cough on you. So, I guess that I won’t get to wear the cool Blazer logo mask this fall?

(05-09-2020 08:31 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  He’s the worst

I don't disagree. But in light of your dismissive, sarcastic comment above, and having being taken to the proverbial woodshed in his response, you might be want to cool it on continuing to categorize others negatively. Quite frankly, you look pretty foolish.

These type of personal, inflammatory, pot-stirring comments is what has sucked the life out of this message board.

That's my $.02.

The figures I have seen say that a properly fitted and worn mask gives the wearer around a 60% protection from droplets, with some variation depending on if you have a filter pocket inside with filter media. It's more like 90 to 95% likely to prevent droplets from the wearer's cough or sneeze from escaping. This assumes that you're not one of the dummies walking around with the mask pulled below your nose so that it is easier to breathe.

The reason for one way aisles in stores is so that if someone coughs or sneezes, it will go toward the back of the person in front of them. Someone walking toward you might get it right in the face. They don't ask you to honor the one way signs to be bossy but to protect others. In a general sense, the primary reason you wear a mask is to make others safer.

(05-10-2020 08:45 PM)bftb Wrote:  

(05-09-2020 08:31 PM)The Answer UAB Wrote:  He’s the worst

I don't disagree. But in light of your dismissive, sarcastic comment above, and having being taken to the proverbial woodshed in his response, you might be want to cool it on continuing to categorize others negatively. Quite frankly, you look pretty foolish.

These type of personal, inflammatory, pot-stirring comments is what has sucked the life out of this message board.

That's my $.02.

Thanks for your opinion. I wasn’t taken to any woodshed. I chose not to respond bc I realized I was wrong in thinking he was making a stupid, right wing conspiracy type post like blazerman has been. I had a wrong opinion of the poster, so I didn’t respond. My dismissive, sarcastic comments were directed to people like blazerman, who deserve every bit of the inflammatory, demeaning comments he gets. I admit I let him get under my skin. It’s just hard to fathom there are people as close minded and backwards as he is. I will ignore him from now on.

Sometimes the ignore feature makes life less stressful.

(05-10-2020 11:12 PM)UAB Band Dad Wrote:  Sometimes the ignore feature makes life less stressful.

I don’t use the ignore feature myself. Even with the guy that liked to garble his sentences and use the word “knot”. I believe that getting angry at what someone said or wrote let’s them accomplish their intent. They win and I lose. They like the attention eventhough it may be negative or invite personal attacks.

Arguments are won with facts and logic. Opposing views can be of use understanding more of the topic at hand. However, once it devolves into personal attacks, it serves no purpose except for Jerry Springer type entertainment.

lol I was threatened with a ban for simply pointing out that UAB athletics might be in a financial bind with the economic impact of the current situation, but this thread has been allowed to continue, with one or two particular ultra-nutty folks posting stuff that would make Alex Jones ask if they were serious

Traffic around here has obviously been on a decline in recent years (as evidenced by allowing the domain to expire for a month without anyone noticing), but now it's just getting sad. Bye guys, this forum had a good run but it's obviously time to turn out the lights on BlazerTalk

Bye. Oh and it was noticed but there were some issues that you were not privy to.

Anyone else wants to go bye.

I believe the definition of unwise is illustrated by a non-biology person posting an uninformed post regarding biology on any UAB forum. Somewhat like a chicken interrupting a fox family reunion.