• chevron_right

      Should you flush with toilet lid up or down? Study says it doesn’t matter

      news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Wednesday, 31 January - 23:51 · 1 minute

    Whether the toilet lid is up or down doesn't make much difference in the spread of airborne bacterial and viral particles.

    Enlarge / Whether the toilet lid is up or down doesn't make much difference in the spread of airborne bacterial and viral particles. (credit: Peter Dazeley )

    File this one under "Studies We Wish Had Let Us Remain Ignorant." Scientists at the University of Arizona decided to investigate whether closing the toilet lid before flushing reduces cross-contamination of bathroom surfaces by airborne bacterial and viral particles via " toilet plumes ." The bad news is that putting a lid on it doesn't result in any substantial reduction in contamination, according to their recent paper published in the American Journal of Infection Control. The good news: Adding a disinfectant to the toilet bowl before flushing and using disinfectant dispensers in the tank significantly reduce cross-contamination.

    Regarding toilet plumes, we're not just talking about large water droplets that splatter when a toilet is flushed. Even smaller droplets can form and be spread into the surrounding air, potentially carrying bacteria like E. coli or a virus (e.g., norovirus) if an infected person has previously used said toilet. Pathogens can linger in the bowl even after repeated flushes, just waiting for their chance to launch into the air and spread disease. That's because larger droplets, in particular, can settle on surfaces before they dry, while smaller ones travel further on natural air currents.

    The first experiments examining whether toilet plumes contained contaminated particles were done in the 1950s, and the notion that disease could be spread this way was popularized in a 1975 study . In 2022, physicists and engineers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, managed to visualize toilet plumes of tiny airborne particles ejected from toilets during a flush using a combination of green lasers and cameras. It made for some pretty vivid video footage:

    Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

    • chevron_right

      Contact-tracing software could accurately gauge COVID-19 risk

      news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Wednesday, 20 December - 19:29 · 1 minute

    A woman wearing a face mask and checking her phone.

    Enlarge (credit: Maridav )

    It’s summer 2021. You rent a house in the countryside with a bunch of friends for someone’s birthday. The weather’s gorgeous that weekend, so mostly you’re all outside—pool, firepit, hammock, etc.—but you do all sleep in the same house. And then on Tuesday, you get an alert on your phone that you’ve been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. How likely are you to now have it?

    To answer that question, a group of statisticians, data scientists, computer scientists, and epidemiologists in the UK analyzed 7 million people who were notified that they were exposed to COVID-19 by the NHS COVID-19 app in England and Wales between April 2021 and February 2022. They wanted to know if—and how—these app notifications correlated to actual disease transmission. Analyses like this can help ensure that an app designed for the next pathogen could retain efficacy while minimizing social and economic burdens. And it can tell us more about the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

    Over 20 million quarantine requests

    The NHS COVID-19 app was active on 13 to 18 million smartphones per day over 2021. It used Bluetooth signals to estimate the proximity between those smartphones while maintaining privacy and then alerted people who spent 15 minutes or more at a distance of 2 meters or less from a confirmed case. This led to over 20 million such alerts, each of which came with a request to quarantine—quite a burden.

    Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

    • chevron_right

      Disease detectives gathered at CDC event—a COVID outbreak erupted

      news.movim.eu / ArsTechnica · Wednesday, 3 May, 2023 - 20:53

    Huge facade for CDC headquarters against a beautiful sky.

    Enlarge (credit: Bloomberg | Getty Images )

    Disease detectives with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are on the case of a new COVID-19 outbreak—the one at their very own conference, which has sickened around 35 attendees as of Tuesday.

    Last week, the CDC hosted the 2023 Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) Conference in Atlanta, the first time the conference has been held in person since 2019. The annual event, which dates back seven decades, was fully virtual last year and was canceled entirely in 2020 and 2021 while EIS officers were immersed in the pandemic response.

    "The COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on everyone and especially for our public health workforce. … We are thankful you are back with us at the EIS conference," EIS leaders wrote in the preface of this year's conference agenda , celebrating the return of the in-person gathering.

    Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

    • chevron_right

      Why Is ‘Herd Immunity’ Suddenly a Good Thing?

      pubsub.dcentralisedmedia.com / LifehackerAustralia · Wednesday, 3 February, 2021 - 21:00 · 3 minutes

    In the early days of the pandemic, there was an idea being thrown around that we should attempt to reach “herd immunity” as soon as possible. It was a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad idea, because it amounted to giving up and letting millions of people die . And yet, now that we have a vaccine, herd immunity is suddenly a good thing. What gives?

    In short, herd immunity from vaccination protects people from getting sick. Herd immunity from natural infection is what you get after you have failed to protect everybody from getting sick.

    “Herd immunity” describes how the community protects people

    Let’s talk about what herd immunity actually means. It’s also called “community immunity.”

    If most people in a community are immune to a contagious disease, then the few individuals who are not immune are at a decreased risk of catching it. If nearly everybody in your city is immune to measles, for example — either from the vaccine or from surviving it as a child — then babies who are not yet old enough to get the MMR vaccine are protected simply because there aren’t many people around to be able to transmit measles to them.

    Herd immunity is not perfect protection, but it means that there aren’t many people who are susceptible to the disease, and that those people are not likely to be in contact with each other. It would be very difficult for an outbreak to start in a community like this.

    What’s Different About the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine?

    Johnson & Johnson released numbers today from their phase 3 clinical trials (the last step before applying for emergency use authorisation) and it looks like there may soon be a third viable COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.

    Read more

    Herd immunity is a goal of vaccination

    Vaccinating one person protects that person; vaccinating most people protects vulnerable people throughout the community.

    The definition of “most” will depend on how infectious the disease is. For measles, you’d need at least 92% of people to be immune. For COVID-19, one common estimate is that 70% of people need to be immune to reach herd immunity.

    Herd immunity has kept diseases in check in the past. Smallpox vaccination campaigns resulted in smallpox being eradicated from the earth — the only human disease that has ever been fully eliminated. Measles still exists, but outbreaks in the U.S. quickly fizzle out thanks to our good vaccination coverage and aggressive contact tracing (although the pandemic has interfered with that work.)

    Infection-derived herd immunity is not the same thing

    In theory, it’s possible to achieve herd immunity through natural infection. But that’s not a smart plan for dealing with any lethal disease, for two reasons:

    First, if there is no vaccine, we only achieve herd immunity after many, many people have gotten sick. If you were to have a community in which 70% of people are COVID-19 survivors, that means the community would have buried many of its residents, and many of those who remain would have long-term complications. (Never mind the collateral damage of an overwhelmed healthcare system and the economic consequences of an unchecked pandemic, which would have caused yet more death and misery.) Even if the remaining 30% are protected, it was at a horrifying cost.

    Second, if the only way to gain immunity is to become infected yourself, there is no way to provide that immunity to new arrivals — like babies — without exposing them to all the dangers of the illness. Herd immunity without vaccination is temporary.

    The reason vaccines are so valuable is because they give us immunity without requiring us to go through all the danger of getting sick. Herd immunity from natural infection is the result of a tragedy, while vaccines allow us to reach herd immunity safely.

    The post Why Is ‘Herd Immunity’ Suddenly a Good Thing? appeared first on Lifehacker Australia .