[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[stem-ebola] WHO seems to acknowledge (rare) possibility of Ebola 'large droplet' transmission
|
I understand the possibility of Ebola 'aerosol' transmission is a
controversial topic. Ebola aerosol transmission is not well-studied,
and existing experimental evidence is contradictory (some studies show
it is possible in animals and primates, wile other studies show it is
not possible).
I remain unconvinced either way, at the moment. I think primarily Ebola
is currently spreading via direct contact right now. But I don't want
to make the classic logical fallacy... "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence" So I'm going to keep an open mind on this one.
In a WHO advisory email sent Monday 10/06 regarding Ebola, the following
(curious) quotes were included:
----
source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/ebola/06-october-2014/en/
“Theoretically, wet and bigger droplets from a heavily infected
individual, who has respiratory symptoms caused by other conditions or
who vomits violently, could transmit the virus – over a short distance –
to another nearby person” -WHO
[ED NOTE: So here WHO admits that 'large droplets' could spread Ebola,
but do not give particle sizes. To me, this suggests that the droplets
are of size 100 microns to 1000 microns in diameter. If this is the
droplet size, these would be rapidly deposited on the mouth , face, or
into the nasopharynx of the second individual. Particles of this size
would be unlikely to remain suspended in air for any substantial period
of time. If this WHO claim is true, Ebola would not be 'airborne' in a
traditional understanding, but could transfer without 'direct contact'
overt short distances, potentially through coughing, sneezing, or
vomiting. This area needs immediate further research.]
“[Transmission of Ebola] could happen when virus-laden heavy droplets
are directly propelled, by coughing or sneezing (which does not mean
airborne transmission) onto the mucus membranes [ED NOTE: MOUTH &
NASOPHARYNX] or skin with cuts or abrasions of another person.” -WHO
[ED NOTE: This statement is a bit contradictory. What is the definition
for 'airborne' that we will all agree on? Is it a particle size range
that WHO refers to? Does a particle have to land in the alveoli to
become 'airborne'? Also, what is the source for expelled droplet
material in this WHO example? Are we talking about Sputum? Saliva?
Mucus? Do we know human levels of PFU/mL in these tissues during the
phases of disease progression?]
“However, the studies implicating these additional bodily fluids were
extremely limited in sample size and the science is inconclusive. In
studies of saliva, the virus was found most frequently in patients at a
severe stage of illness.” -WHO
[ED NOTE: So a low sample size... This means we need further research to
either confirm or disconfirm this information. What about Sputum and
Mucus during earlier stages of illness? When do these fluids start to
have viral PFUs present within them in regards to the course of the
disease? What about tissue tropism in the lung in the 2014 outbreak?
Do we see viral titers in human lung? If so, what levels, in Ebola
PFU/g of wet lung tissue?]
“Epidemiological data emerging from the outbreak are not consistent with
the pattern of spread seen with airborne viruses, like those that cause
measles and chickenpox, or the airborne bacterium that causes
tuberculosis” -WHO
[ED Note: Agreed. We can model this quite well via direct contact. But
this particular issue has way more questions than answers, particularly
in regards to 'long-term' strategies over the next 8 to 36 months, as
well as what are suitable levels of PPE for healthcare workers.]
----
USAMRID reference regarding VHF and Filoviruses:
"All of the VHF agents (except for dengue virus) are laboratory
infectious hazards by aerosol, even though dengue virus has been
nosocomially transmitted by blood splash. There aerosol infectivity for
many VHF agents has been studied and measured in experimental animal
models. VHF agents cause severe disease, and many have extremely high
fatality rates."
"In several instances, secondary transmission among contacts and medical
personnel without direct body fluid contact exposure has been
documented. These instances prompted concern of a rare phenomenon of
aerosol transmission of infection. [...] A negative pressure isolation
room is ideal."
-USAMRIID, Medical Management of Biological Casualties Handbook, Seventh
Edition (September 2011)
source:
http://www.usamriid.army.mil/education/bluebookpdf/USAMRIID%20BlueBook%207th%20Edition%20-%20Sep%202011.pdf
----
OPERON LABS COMMENTS:
The controversy over 'airborne' transmission is unlikely to end anytime
soon. Part of the problem is we do not have a universally agreed upon
transmission of 'airborne'. (What aerosol particle sizes are we talking
about? What are the levels of virus (PFU/mL) in these droplets? What
biological materials are the droplets comprised of? etc).
The size of an expelled particle determines whether it will be deposited
in the nasopharynx, trachae, alveoli, or other surface. Many studies on
aerosol deposition fraction involve drug-delivery rather than infectious
viral particles.
First, let's look at the epidemiology of aerosol particle sizes... Take
for example sneezing...
source:
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/88/20130560.long
Characterizations of particle size distribution of the droplets exhaled
by sneeze
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/88/20130560/T1.expansion.html
Measured data and fitting curves of two sample sneezes:
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/10/88/20130560/F4.expansion.html
"For the two peaks of the bimodal distribution, the geometric mean (the
geometric standard deviation) is 386.2 µm (1.8) for peak 1 and 72.0 µm
(1.5) for peak 2. " (sneezing)
From the same study, everyday 'speech' results in the expulsion of
aerosol particles of sizes ranges from 10 microns to 1000 microns, with
an average of about 100 microns in diameter.
We can thus expect sneezing to result in particle deposition mainly to
the upper respiratory tract of another host (mouth, face, eyes, &
nasopharynx) during coughing, talking, and sneezing. The question is
not whether infected hosts expel PFU-laden aerosol particles. *The
question is whether these particles contain any viral PFU (Plaque
Forming Units)*. We simply don't know that critical fact here in 2014.
At the present time, airborne transmission doesn't seem to be a
significant mode of transmission. But we should definitely stay aware
of this possibility, since it was referenced recently by the WHO.
Droplet Size and Penetration of Respiratory Passages
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/8-9/fig1-Ip2.gif
source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_delivery.htm