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

Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#41

Post by clairity »

scottishcow wrote: post #26
jawns wrote: post #4

Whenever I see a paper from this long ago, I immediately check to see how often it's been referenced in the literature. Google Scholar says this study has been cited by a measly 16 papers since it was published in 1973: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1453678737796934715... Without any other context, I would assume that the relative lack of studies that reference this paper suggests that there might be issue…

Granted 16 isn't a lot, but that's actually a higher citation count than the vast majority of academic papers. Anyways, thinking of citations as a reliable proxy for paper quality is like ranking artists by how many followers they have on Twitter.

it would be more like ranking artists based on how many other artists follow them, not the general public as a whole.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#42

Post by derekp7 »

dharma1 wrote: post #25
ck2 wrote: post #9

Viruses can linger in the body and "hide" waiting for immune system to weaken. This is how people get shingles many decades later after chicken-pox, it's the same virus, just hid in nerve cells and spinal cord.

Some can stay latent for a long time - herpes viruses, retroviruses like HIV, Epstein-Barr, shingles like you said - but most viruses don't, as far as we know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_latency

> Epstein-Barr

Am I the only one who had to look this up, thinking it was a hidden commentary on current political items?

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#43

Post by didgeoridoo »

nazca wrote: post #18

I wonder if after 17 weeks of isolation their immune systems atrophied due to limited exposure to pathogens, making them more susceptible to relatively a 'small' initial exposure? Are there implications for the millions of folks isolating and reducing their daily exposure to pathogens?

Atrophy, yes, but not from lack of challenge. More likely due to limited exercise, highly attenuated sunlight, and questionable diet.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#44

Post by didgeoridoo »

jansan wrote: post #15

Does anybody else here have tonsilloliths? By their awful smell I assume that they may contain all kinds of bacteria or virii. Is it possible that they can survive in there and reactivate several months later again? Warning: You will need a strong stomach if you intend to search for "tonsilloliths" on Google or Youtube.

Ugh. I had those nasties in my early 20s. No idea why, but they just went away one day. Good luck!

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#45

Post by sushid »

lurquer wrote: post #38
marktangotango wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, two weeks in 3 of 4 in our family had mild fevers (99 I also discovered my temp is generally 96-97, rarely goes up to "normal".

>Drive through windows and me going to the store have been our only exposures. Let me reword this for you: "interacting with a teenager who deals with about a thousand people a day, and going to a facility that is frequented by tens of thousands of people a week, has been my only exposure."

Seriously, how is this not comprehensible to people? If you or your family members are going outside, you HAVE NOT been in isolation. You've been interacting with people outside and bringing in germs from your visits.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#46

Post by wahern »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #36
cj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone sneezed on... Sanjay Gupta was talking on CNN (I know, not the most reputable source) and at one point flat out said "If a cook in the kitchen of a restauraunt you're ordering from has covid19 and sneezes on your food, it won't get passed on to you, since this is not a food borne illness". I was quite shocked to hear that. I'd be very curious to see what actual science says about food as an infection vector…

There's evidence it can infect via the digestive system. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172493/ The above study seems to imply that a gastro based infection of COVID is linked to mild symptoms though since cells in the digestive tract have far fewer ACE2 receptors compared to the respiratory system. So maybe it's the best way to catch the disease?

The digestive tract doesn't need to be infected to be effected. AFAIU, in some cases non-infectious viral particles (i.e. non-viable segments floating around in your body) have evolved to make you cough and sneeze through irritation, so it would be unsurprising if in some people they irritated other tissues or possibly even effected gut flora.

If this is in fact the case, then fecal material wouldn't necessarily be a transmission vector. Although it could be; it could be a vector even if the irritation was not by infection.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#47

Post by sjg007 »

lurquer wrote: post #38
marktangotango wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, two weeks in 3 of 4 in our family had mild fevers (99 I also discovered my temp is generally 96-97, rarely goes up to "normal".

>Drive through windows and me going to the store have been our only exposures. Let me reword this for you: "interacting with a teenager who deals with about a thousand people a day, and going to a facility that is frequented by tens of thousands of people a week, has been my only exposure."

I think the issue is that we are wearing masks and gloves so despite those protections you still can get sick while maintaining 6 foot social distance and even strictly limiting the time in a store (if ever)... Also the vector is one adult here max.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#48

Post by ceejayoz »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #43
nazca wrote: post #18

I wonder if after 17 weeks of isolation their immune systems atrophied due to limited exposure to pathogens, making them more susceptible to relatively a 'small' initial exposure? Are there implications for the millions of folks isolating and reducing their daily exposure to pathogens?

Atrophy, yes, but not from lack of challenge. More likely due to limited exercise, highly attenuated sunlight, and questionable diet.

No worse than your average winter in the northern US. We get that for 4-5 months at a time in upstate NY.

Re: Outbreak of common colds at Antarctic base after 17 weeks of isolation (1973)

#50

Post by samatman »

y-c-o-m-b wrote: post #40
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's evidence it can infect via the digestive system. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172493/ The above study seems to imply that a gastro based infection of COVID is linked to mild symptoms though since cells in the digestive tract have far fewer ACE2 receptors compared to the respiratory system. So maybe it's the best way to catch the disease?

If we could somehow confirm that most (>95%) of gastro based infections result in mild symptoms, I wonder if that would be one way (although not a great way) to "immunize" the public vs a vaccine? Swallow the pill containing the virus and let it run its course to develop immunity?

This general strategy is called inoculation, or variolation.

It is, indeed, not a great way to immunize the public, as the patient becomes contagious, and can pass on full-blown infection to other people. It's also dangerous in its own right; 'mild' infections can progress to full-blown infections.

Post reply on HN