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

281–290 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#281

Post by rolph »

jessriedel wrote: post #269
angst_ridden wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the retina is not exposed to the outside world. It's got the rest of the eye between it and the air.

Ok, but is brain tissue uniquely infectable compared to eye tissue or something? The ultimate worry isn't that your olfactory bulb gets hurt, it's that the infection reaches deeper into the brain, and I don't get why it's easier to do that from the olfactory bulb rather than from the eye.

the conjunctiva of the eye is different tissue than optic nerve. there is fat, connective tissue, and muscle surrounding the eye.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#282

Post by pault »

Proziam wrote: post #111
NhanH wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is getting annoying that people keeps comparing different numbers to make their points. If you are using 0.2% mortality rate in a healthy population, you have to compare it with the flu mortality's rate in a healthy population, which is still a magnitude lower. It's disgraceful, to be honest, to compare mortality rates on different population at all. And I'm just gonna quote your link directly to make my point, I'…

So, in your opinion, the news coverage is totally justified and the lack of coverage for every other subject is okay? There's already 'effective interventions' being discussed openly from n95 masks to quarantines and travel restrictions. Getting irritated at me for pointing out that the average person is not at severe risk of death, contrary to what the media is currently saying, seems a bit of an over-reaction.

That's not much consolation if someone close to you dies. I'm frustrated with the lack of empathy on display in discussions about this virus. People see 2% and then blow it off because "it probably won't happen to me". Those numbers represent real people with loved ones that will be 100% dead.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#283

Post by maxerickson »

aldanor wrote: post #235
samatman wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I lived in Chicago I used to practice riding the L without touching anything with my hands. In the Bay I kept up the habit. This is never not a good idea, so no time like the present to get into it.

Or you could just wear cycling gloves.

Then you have to handle the gloves.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#284

Post by therealdrag0 »

Symmetry wrote: post #255
crusty wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TL:DR: The most effective use of disposable masks for blocking germ transmission is by the people with the germs who might pass them to this without but at risk. Surgical masks are meant to protect surgery patients from the medical staff and the droplet-encased germs they emanate. N95 masks are meant to protect the wearer from particulate matter (harmful dust) in the air, specifically those particles over 30 microns.…

What I've read about Coronaviruses is that most transmission is either through hand to face contact or droplet-suspended virions so a mask that doesn't protect against aerosolized droplets would still be fairly effective. I understand that surgical masks aren't intended to prevent inhalation of droplets but the substantial symmetry between air passing through one way or the other would suggest at least broadly simila…

Are surgical masks sealed around the edges? I've only worn N95 before and if you don't have a proper seal you're not even filtering the air. That's what I've always assumed was the problem with surgical masks. It's not that they're not a good enough filter, it's that they aren't even filtering the air when you breath in. But I might be wrong.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#285

Post by refurb »

nopinsight wrote: post #223
refurb wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to believe other countries won’t institute travel restrictions if they get a ton of cases? My point is that based on how many die from the flu each year, you’d have to see 130,000 deaths in China for the impact to be the same as the flu.

Have you considered the fatality rate and what would happen if it reaches the same percentage of population as seasonal flu? Check out Spanish Flu for worst case scenario. China restrictions have been much more stringent than what you imply. People in Wuhan were prevented from leaving their apartments at all and needed to wait for food from the government. The jury is still out whether softer forms of restrictions ca…

Have you considered the fatality rate and what would happen if it reaches the same percentage of population as seasonal flu?

Yeah, that would be bad, but there is no data to suggest it would get that bad.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#286

Post by pombrand »

Airborne viral particle protection: N95 masks may only be effective used with eye protection. Surgical masks may not help at all.

Looked for interventional studies testing whether face masks and eye protection work in humans to protect against airborne viral particles. A critical issue with many such studies is that medical staff only use masks and/or eye protection at work, opening them to being infected outside of work.

Found a small study [1] getting around this problem by exposing subjects (n = 28, avg age 30.5 years) to monodispersed live attenuated influenza vaccine particles by placing them in front of a vibrating-orifice aerosol generator for 20 minutes, subsequently testing for infection using RT-PCR and culture in nasal washes.

Surgical mask: 3M 1818 | N95 mask: 3M 1860/1860S | Eye Protection: Z87 Uvex non-vented

-----------------------------------------------

RESULTS

-----------------------------------------------

No precautions: 4 out of 4 infected.

Ocular exposure only: 4 out of 4 infected.

Surgical mask only: 5 out of 5 infected.

Surgical mask + eye protection: 5 out of 5 infected.

N95 mask only: 3 out of 5 infected.

N95 mask + eye protection: 1 out of 5 infected.

1. Bischoff WE, Reid T, Russell GB, Peters TR. Transocular entry of seasonal influenza-attenuated virus aerosols and the efficacy of n95 respirators, surgical masks, and eye protection in humans. J Infect Dis. 2011;204(2):193–199.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#287

Post by vanniv »

whatshisface wrote: post #246
TeMPOraL wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that a mask that isn't regularly replaced and handled very carefully actually increases your chances of catching the virus, via a mask->hand->face transmission.

Wait, how? If it's on the mask wouldn't it be on the face if the mask wasn't there? What process puts viruses on masks but not faces?

The masks encourage a warm moist environment surrounding your nose and mouth.

If the mask becomes contaminated, it becomes an ideal vector for encouraging infection -- so if you touch the inside of the mask with your contaminated hands (say you move the mask to touch your face or adjust it or whatever), for example, the mask becomes the opposite of protective.

Masks are somewhat effective at reducing spread if the already-infected person is wearing the mask.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#288

Post by divbzero »

Symmetry wrote: post #161
T-A wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I think they switched to flooding now: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/australia/new-south-wales...

We've got the plague of locusts in Africa, though. Really been a rough half year.

This subthread reads like an excerpt from the Bible.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#289

Post by fishmaster »

cameldrv wrote: post #273
penagwin wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the biggest problem is people "feel safe" with a mask on, they may not take other precautions. Also my understanding is that a N95 mask that isn't properly worn (doesn't have a good seal) then it's nearly equivalent to no mask at all. So you combine those two together and you have people who aren't effectively protected by the mask and are making riskier decisions.

Is this based on data or just a feeling you have?

I have read these comments often now and it's just something people make up to justify not being able to buy masks.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#290

Post by majewsky »

hackeer wrote: post #55
jxy wrote: post #26

I see a lot of "may", "possible", "if", ... Is this how people typically write a paper to Medical Virology?

Recently I started listening twiv.tv podcast and that's how they talk. For instance, they said there are many videos in social media of people dropping unconscious to the floor, but the virologists said not to trust those videos because "it's social media". I stopped listening to their podcast. These people don't reason unless they are shown a peer reviewed paper saying people drop unconscious. I mean, how likely is…

> how likely is it that those videos are being faked?

I see it's your first day on the internet. Welcome!

Post reply on HN