The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2 • Hacker News Board

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#91

Post by dobleboble » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

thijsvandien wrote: post #32

As a side observation: most reporting seems rather binary, i.e. you either die or survive, period. What interests me the most, however, is how often survival means full recovery, especially now that the nervous system comes up. Are there any long term effects? Should one generally expect to come out of it worse, the same, or stronger? I'm much less afraid to die from this than to end up with chronic respiratory and/o…

It has only been around for a few months so nobody knows. It is also too early to know about reinfection. My advice would be to avoid getting infected if you can but please be mindful that a lot of people won't have the privilege of avoiding it, and they do not need to be unduly stressed from the prospect.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#92

Post by OJFord » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

decebalus1 wrote: post #72

kaylynb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I would call them impractical for everyday wear. I wear N95 masks when commuting during active wildfires. The news always says not to wear them because you won't put them on properly, but it's really not that hard to ensure the fitment is correct. It's not like the construction workers that wear them occupationally are rocket scientists. My partner is more vulnerable to respiratory problems and has alway…

> I'm not sure I would call them impractical for everyday wear. I wear N95 masks when commuting during active wildfires. Right on. For the past couple of years, because the Seattle summers have been hazy due to the wildfire smoke, I still have quite a large batch of N95 masks. I too used to wear them during my commute and the only problem I see is that if you're at risk (underlying respiratory/heart problems) you'll…

I was under the impression that there isn't (yet? But not even close to) a supply issue for the healthcare sector, but rather only at retail, due to a combination of increased demand and supply switching over to for-healthcare-only mode.

This will be something that's routine, just following the plan, that exists to serve some combination of regulation, duty, and risk (burning important healthcare customer or government relationship) mitigation.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#93

Post by stelfer » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:43 PM UTC

aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

It's not clear that it spreads via aerosols, in fact it's more likely that it spreads via droplet and contact. Thus the virtue of the mask is that it keeps the individual's fingers away from their faces. From the perspective of the theory in the article, masks keep people's fingers out of their noses. Of course, there are other ways to do that.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#94

Post by SkyMarshal » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

morpheuskafka wrote: post #15

aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

Even N95 masks are not fully sufficient. They typically block particles at 0.3 microns or larger, but coronaviruses tend to be smaller, around 0.1 - 0.3 microns.

You need an ASTM Level 2 or higher surgical mask to block coronavirus from completely penetrating the mask.

That said, any mask is better than no mask, first because it prevents you touching your mouth and nose with potentially infected hands, and second because coronavirus travels in water droplets which can be stopped by the mask from going straight into your mouth or nose.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#95

Post by rolph » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #80

aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Why is it easier to get to the brain from the nose compares to the mouth or eyes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfactory_bulb.

however:

Yan-Chao Li [etal.] ABSTRACT Swine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus (HEV) has been shown to have a capability to propagate via neural circuits to the central nervous system after pe- ripheral inoculation, resulting in acute deadly encepha- lomyelitis in natural host piglets as well as in experimental younger rodents. This study has system- atically examined the assembly and dissemination of HEV 67N in the primary motor cortex of infected rats and provides additional evidence indicating that mem- branous-coating-mediated endo-/exocytosis can be used by HEV for its transsynaptic transfer. In addition, our results suggested that this transsynaptic pathway could adapted for larger granular materials, such as viruses. These findings should help in understanding the mechanisms underlying coronavirus infections as well as the intercellular exchanges occurring at the syn- aptic junctions. J. Comp. Neurol. 521:203–212, 2013.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.23171

it seems if you are not a swine or a rat you have little to worry about.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#96

Post by giancarlostoro » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #74

zapita wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regular surgical masks won't protect your from inhaling the virus, but they will protect you from rubbing your face and nose 100 times a day with contaminated hands, without even noticing it. I wouldn't dismiss their efficacy.

If that's your goal (and it is not an unreasonable one) you can achieve that with a bandanna. You don't need a surgical mask.

I'm enjoying the thought of software engineers everywhere coming into work with bandanas covering their faces.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#97

Post by T-A » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

allendoerfer wrote: post #88

Proziam wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there is news coverage about other things (remember the whole Hong Kong situation that we aren't hearing about suddenly?) that might still deserve some air time. The media is profiting off this story big time. It's like when the plane went missing and a…

Also is Australia still burning? A burning continent seemed important before the virus, not anymore.

No, I think they switched to flooding now:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-south-wales...

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#98

Post by pbhjpbhj » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #77

morpheuskafka wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

>need to be conserved for public health users. I think we should all ask ourselves why we take it for granted that we should simply have to ration masks. Why aren't there enough masks available for everyone for inevitable outbreaks like this? Why don't we have the industrial capacity to manufacture masks in the US, leaving us reliant on foreign imports? We spend ~$80 billion dollars a month on our endless war, milita…

[flagged]

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#99

Post by grogenaut » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

stelfer wrote: post #93

aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

It's not clear that it spreads via aerosols, in fact it's more likely that it spreads via droplet and contact. Thus the virtue of the mask is that it keeps the individual's fingers away from their faces. From the perspective of the theory in the article, masks keep people's fingers out of their noses. Of course, there are other ways to do that.

Such as?

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#100

Post by calmworm » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #90

sombremesa wrote: post #66

I've only read the abstract, and it seems to clearly say that the virus can get to the brain via the lungs. So I have no idea what people ITT are on about regarding purposeful infection or masks for prevention. Regardless, this abstract also does not explain the mildness of the disease except for the immunocompromised and elderly, which to me renders the link between how you get the infection and fatality a bit suspi…

If you read more than the abstract, it explains that animals that are infected nasally have much higher rates of brain infection than the fecal-oral route of infection. Edit: changed "oral/fecal" to "fecal-oral," thanks calmworm. Also removed a period.

*facal-oral