Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#171

Post by drcode »

doublekill wrote: post #110
drcode wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will argue this is wrong: Only N95 or better masks have studies proving their effectiveness. I don't think we have good data on weaker masks or even "home made" masks- It's totally possible they are also effective, with proper technique. Please somebody show me data that proves otherwise, I'm totally open to it. (Note: I'm not saying I want you to post opinions from people in authority, I'm saying I want to see dat…

No, there is a 2009 study which compares N95 mask efficiency with surgical masks, because they predict that during a pandemic N95 masks will be in shorter supply. (1) They don't find significantly more efficiency for N95 masks, but other studies do find N95 masks slightly better. (2) (1) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/184819 (2) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-2659... Do a s…

Great link!

Yes, it really hurts me, as a science-based person, to have scientists with authority say things that are unscientific.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#172

Post by jrandm »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #86
jrandm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My layman's understanding is that any barrier will stop some percent of most things. In the case of small, airborne particles, this stopped percentage of already-dry, floating material is very small. That means inhaling through them is relatively ineffective at stopping you from inhaling the particles. When you exhale it is more wet and the moisture causes the barrier to catch more of the airborne particles. The barr…

Would you agree a fair corollary of that is: if everyone wears masks then spreading of the contagion would be reduced considerably. It may primarily be about preventing spread from those infected, but that's still super helpful.

I would agree if everyone exposed wore masks the spread of this contagion would be reduced considerably.

Logically, I might extend it to everyone wearing masks would considerably reduce the spread of exhaled contagions. This might first be encouraged in high population density areas, like parts of Asia, and first need to be integrated with fashion[0] to have any chance of broad success. I suspect it will never be a preference everywhere barring some sort of serious consequence (like death) for not wearing the mask.

In this situation, I think the most important thing is to know that normally available or homemade masks are helpful for presenting the spread of the disease. The more expensive masks are better but in this instance, not better in a meaningful way for the average person. The current supplies should be saved for those at-higher-risk populations like medical staff.

[0]: https://www.pinterest.ca/charmed4evr/fashionable-surgical-fa...

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#173

Post by jeffmcmahan »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #94
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.

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 bec…

Hmm. Based on what I read, particles smaller than 0.3 microns have a widely "wandering" path of travel through the mask fibers on account of Brownian motion. My understanding was that 0.3 micron particles are the size that the N95 mask is least effective at blocking. Smaller particles are blocked more effectively, not less, until you get down to a scale so small that you pretty well exclude live biological material.

Not my original source, but discusses the same thing: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/376179O/nanotechnology-a...

This is to say, 95% filtration is the worst the mask will perform, with particles of any size, as it relates to coronavirus.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#174

Post by derivagral »

koolba wrote: post #154
giancarlostoro wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would they not remote work?

Many places small and large put a large value on butts in seats.

For a less cynical take, there's a lot of conversations that do happen more efficiently in-person, particularly at a lot of places that aren't set up for "full remote".

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#175

Post by spyckie2 »

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…

Wuhan was infected at the worst possible time (CNY) where the entire population underwent a systematic distribution of the virus (visiting relatives) and also likely bodily fluid exchange (via sharing food - Chinese people don't use communal utensils with family).

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#176

Post by GuB-42 »

headsupftw wrote: post #138
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.

One of my coworkers, who is a staunch supporter for wearing face masks to protect against coronavirus, wears an N95 the entire time he's in the office. Yesterday he claimed he's having chest discomfort (which is what some people will feel when they wear N95 24x7 awake) and went to a hospital to demand a test for coronavirus infection. Needless to say his request got declined and he's doing just fine but I am simply s…

Nocebo effect?

If you are thinking about coronavirus, you are more likely to feel the symptoms of a coronavirus infection, or what you think are the symptoms.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#177

Post by viggity »

fooey wrote: post #118
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…

Given there's no herd immunity, and the virulance of the strain, estimates are 40-70% of the population will contract the virus within a year 0.2% of 40% of the US Population is 260,000 deaths within a year[1] "it's just the flu" greatly underappreciates just how deadly influenza actually is If the mortality rate is more in the 2%+ range, we're looking at millions of deaths in the US alone. [1] https://www.wolframalp…

Influenza has a CFR of 0.1% COVID-19 has CFR of 2-3% (20-30x higher). Officially the CFR for COVID is ~3.3% but it is thought that is too high because there is thought to be many people who have it who are asymptomatic or have a mild reaction. FTR - 2% of 40% is 2.6 million.

The R0 is the highest driving factor for how many people will end up getting it the first year (aka R-Naught, is how many people on average an infected person spreads the infection to).

R0 for flu is 1.3. R0 for COVID is estimated to be 2.6, but I just read that the R0 is thought to be overestimated. and closer to 2.0. An R0 of 2.6 => closer to 70% of people. R0 of 2.0 => closer to 40% of people.

This is frightening as hell.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#178

Post by rolph »

jessriedel wrote: post #146
rolph wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exami…

I don't understand what the Wikipedia link is supposed to show. Your eyes are tightly linked to your brain too.

what you should take home from this is that you are not in immedate danger from a neurotrophic virus at this time.

what you should also take from this espescially if you are involved in policy is that this corona virus we are experiencing has in its distant heritage ancestors with reported neurotrophic properties. It is possible, that at some time in the future, this virus will accumulate signifigant genetic drift and gain or lose certain properties.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#179

Post by CamperBob2 »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #30
xenonite wrote: post #14

The link should be changed to the publisher‘s page where the pdf is linked. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25728

It's important to see the NIH summary though. Gives the study credibility.

Which is actually a problem. Not uncommon to see obvious sham science propagated with an official-looking PubMed link at nih.gov.

"I'm allergic to WiFi."

"No, you're not. Nobody is allergic to WiFi."

"Yes, I am. Here's an official PubMed citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109 . Why do you hate science?"

Post reply on HN