Study Raises Concerns About Indoor Social Distancing Safety
Researchers at MIT looked at the accepted 6-foot social distancing standards and found that it "is not enough, and may provide a false sense of security" when guarding against airborne covid transmission.
The Washington Post:
Social Distancing Indoors May Provide ‘False Sense Of Security,’ Covid Transmission Study Finds
The common six-foot social distancing guidance on its own may not be enough to protect people from contracting the coronavirus while spending time indoors, according to a report that examined the virus’s airborne transmission risk. Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology argued that not all indoor settings are the same, varying by size, ventilation, air filtration, occupancy and the nature of the activity. While the core premise of the study isn’t new, the research offers more details (and a handy online risk-assessment calculator) to help people better understand what factors in a given indoor setting may increase their risk for catching the coronavirus. (Bellware, 4/27)
CNN:
Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule Misses Bigger Risks, MIT Experts Say
When it comes to being indoors, the six feet rule of social distancing misses the bigger point of how coronavirus spreads, according to two Massachusetts Institute of Technology experts. While staying six feet apart can help prevent the spread of large droplets of saliva or mucus that carry coronavirus and other germs, that distance does nothing to protect people from tiny airborne particles of virus called aerosols, MIT engineer Martin Bazant and mathematician John Bush write in a report published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Fox, 4/27)
In other news about the spread of the coronavirus —
Bloomberg:
Covid Risk Greater If Passengers Board Plane Back To Front
Boarding passengers seated at the back of the aircraft first -- a Covid-era change by Delta Air Lines Inc. and others to cut the risk of infection -- actually increases the chance of catching the virus by 50%, a scientific study showed. So-called back-to-front boarding is also twice as risky as letting passengers on at random, even though it does reduce exposure between seated passengers and those walking down the plane, according to the study published Wednesday in the Royal Society Open Science journal. The higher risk comes from closer contact between passengers in the same rows clustering in the aisle as they stow their luggage. (Whitley, 4/28)
CIDRAP:
Shift Work May Increase Risk Of COVID-19
People who work irregular or permanent shifts were associated with double the risk of COVID-19, according to findings from a Thorax study published yesterday. .. The researchers reported that shift workers experienced increased risk for COVID-19 diagnosis regardless of job type (nonessential, essential, healthcare) and physical proximity to coworkers and the public. Instead, they write, the disparity may be driven by the amount of people in the workspace within a 24-hour period, reduced cleaning time, fatigue leading to less mitigation adherence, and the possibility that shift work may alter immune response. (4/27)
CIDRAP:
COVID-19 Variants Spread Faster But Grew Milder Over Time In Ohio
Cleveland Clinic researchers identified 484 unique mutations among six strains of SARS-CoV-2 isolates early in the COVID-19 pandemic, finding that the first variants were more deadly than subsequent strains and suggesting that monitoring circulating strains may help predict patient outcomes. (Van Beusekom, 4/27)
Houston Chronicle:
COVID Variants Pose 'Sneaky And Detrimental Threats' To Kids, Houston Doctors Find
A growing body of research indicates that children exposed to COVID-19 face significant and long-term health threats. Earlier this month, researchers in the United Kingdom released a report showing that about half of the kids who have developed a mysterious, COVID-related complication called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) later experienced neurological symptoms ranging from hallucinations to impaired brain functions. It’s the latest bit of research challenging the notion that the virus poses a low risk to children. Pfizer and Moderna are currently running clinical trials on children younger than 16, the current age cutoff for vaccinations, per the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (Downen, 4/27)
