There are more than 3000 coronavirus cases in Australia still under investigation, with many of Victoria’s cases coming from unknown sources.
Without knowing the source of the virus, little can be done to halt the source of the cluster. Crikey takes a look at some common myths and theories around where people are picking up COVID-19 infections.
✓ Close contact Chair in Epidemiology at Deakin University Professor Catherine Bennett told Crikey the most likely unknown source was through close contact of an infected person.
“Victoria has wide enough spread that it doesn’t take much to lose connections between asymptomatic carriers, non-identified cases and those with mild illnesses who don’t get tested,” Bennett said.
“You get other cases that appear to be random, but are actually connected through these invisible chains.”
Close contacts in Victoria are defined as people who have been sitting across from an infected person for 15 minutes, or in the same room for two hours.
“You might be getting it from the air — either through droplets or aerosols,” Bennett said.
New research has suggested COVID-19 is not just transmitted through dense droplets, but through smaller, lighter air particles which float in the air for longer.
✖ Surfaces Deep cleaning of offices, wiping down gym equipment and pre-packaged goods in supermarkets: surface transmission has been talked about as a risk for a while, but how common is it to catch COVID-19 from a table?
According to Melbourne University biostatistics expert Dr Alex Polyakov, pretty unlikely.
“It could happen if an infected person touches a surface, then another person immediately touches the surface, then immediately touches their face,” Polyakov told Crikey.
“We don’t think the virus survives that long on surfaces.”
COVID-19 could survive anywhere from minutes to hours to days depending on the surface, temperature and humidity of the environment, though one study found these results had little resemblance to real-life scenarios.
✓ Through the eyes Horrifyingly, research has suggested droplets or air particles with COVID-19 can enter the body not just through the mouth and nose, but through the eyes, too.
“Say you get into a lift shortly after someone has sneezed, the virus may be present in very very small droplets of saliva that float around in the air. If that gets into your eyes, that’s a possible route of transmission,” Polyakov said.
“That’s why a lot of major hospitals now recommend not just masks, but face shields, too.”
✖ Young Children Children as a possible petri dish of transmission is often raised when debating whether schools should reopen.
Garvan Institute of Medical Research immunologist Dr Stuart Tangye told Crikey children aged 10 to 19 spread the virus at least as well as adults do.
“As for kids under 10, that’s ambiguous,” he said.
One study in Iceland suggested kids under 10 were less likely to catch the virus — though for those who do catch it, it can be dangerous with some developing features of toxic shock syndrome and atypical Kawasaki disease.
✖ Pets Dogs, cats and tigers have caught COVID-19 from humans. So how likely is it that our beloved four-legged friends are passing the virus along?
Not very. Cases are far and few between, though little research has been done, Tangye said.
“Experimental animals like mice and rats don’t get infected with SARS-COV 2 … it’s possible the virus could mutate to use other domesticated animals as their host,” he said.
The virus has not been reported in pets, livestock or wildlife in Australia.
✓ Masks Dean of the School of Health Sciences at Swinburne University Professor Bruce Thompson told Crikey misuse of personal protective equipment, including face masks, is a potential source of infection.
“As soon as you put your mask on, you need to make the assumption that it has COVID-19 on it,” he said, adding it’s more likely a person will reinfect themselves with COVID-19 than catching it from another person’s saliva droplets landing on the mask.
“Your mask is like your underwear: don’t take them off or touch them in public,” he said.
Importantly, Thompson added, the main reason the virus is spreading is because humans are giving it to humans.
“We need to focus on the majority of transmission cases … it’s not from pets, the footpath or a loaf of bread, it’s mostly from humans to humans.”
““Your mask is like your underwear.” Love the comparison… A friend, who is a nurse explained to me how masks, rather than keeping us safe, can be counterproductive simply because hardly anyone (unless trained and continually disciplined) has any idea how to handle a mask.
Has their been any public education campaign to tell us? Silly question…
This is what they have to do in ICU: Dispose of the mask after every use. Do not touch its outside surface – remove only by carefully prying up the elastic straps while still wearing gloves. Make sure the mask is correctly fitted and do not for any reason pull down to expose nose or mouth. After removing dispose of in safe (closed) container, then the gloves too. Wash hands.
Disposable masks have a maximum lifespan of 4-5 hours, depending on humidity. Old masks are actually more dangerous than none at all, especially ones that have been breathed in heavily and made damp… And for (males) who have facial hair, they are useless.
So presumably Melbourne’s hipsters have shaved their Ned Kelly beards. Has Dan dictated that yet? Maybe that will come in tomorrow’s announcement… Basically, masks are horrible things, but luckily we’re not worried about the environment any more. If all Australians go through two disposable masks per day, that’s at least 52 million masks and gloves to manufacture and dispose of (in landfill – most of the materials don’t recycle) – every single day.
What a fine pickle we’ve talked ourselves into…
Sources for statement that for males with facial hair, they are useless?
Presumably every health worker with a beard has now shaved it off, except no, I don’t think that’s happened.
Two day stubble? 3 day? Extravagant long beard? Any graduation of risk?
I think that is just one of those furpheys. While getting tested last Friday the nurse explained the use of masks, but I had only put it on for the minute before I approached the car testing site, for their benefit, not mine. She explained how it was now compromised because I had touched it with my fingers, but had no idea whether I had sanitised my hands one minute beforehand in which case no contamination at all. She also assumed I might be using it longer term, but it was off as soon as I left the car testing station. There was no point, either my whole family was infected already or none of us were. I isolated, naturally, but family members have shared everything already.
Your point about some public programming to advise how to use masks is well made.
Masks for visiting shopping centres or public transport is just a no brainer, beard or not. As a risk management issue, you would use them unless it was absolutely proven that they were ineffective or counterproductive in every case, not on the basis of water cooler conversations. Nobody has shown them to be useless, and even WHO has come around to the bleeding obvious.
It’s always been about not spreading it rather than protecting yourself, and again this was the mistake of the health practitioner in relation to me. I’m not an ICU worker, limit ALL social interaction except for those I live with, and mask up for short shopping trips. You don’t need 2 masks per day doing that, and you can use a cloth one and clean it.
Given that viral load is probably the most significant factor, masks are a great assistance for those not working in hospitals to avoid contamination either way. Correct and diligent use of masks is essential for ICU and other hospital staff, which is an entirely different use case, and has different protocols.
The source for the facial hair comment was my friend, the nurse. He was working in hospital admin, but was drafted back to ICU at the start of the crisis his hospital was expecting in April /May (which never came). He had to shave his beard – now grown back again, as he’s back in his old job. During his ICU stint, most of the the duty staff had nothing to do, their work load was way down from normal. Less mobility during the lockdown meant fewer accidents of course, but admissions for all the usual complaints like suspected cardiacs inexplicably vanished too. People didn’t want to present themselves to hospital , and overload the heroes on the frontline. He was finally instructed to take all his leave, and go home.
I never claimed masks were useless, just that the way most people use and handle them renders them so. I get that they’re a symbol of all sorts of things and yeah, they’re “better than nothing.” But that’s about it… I enjoyed this NYTimes article about the futility of trying to enforce mask use in a US state where it is supposedly mandatory.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/31/us/coronavirus-masks-enforcement-key-west.html
Ludicrous situations, just absurd… Lots of pointless aggravation too, which when combined with alcohol can so easily result in violence. Needless to say, many police departments and indoor establishments all across the US have simply been ignoring enforcement.
What I find interesting about the “don’t touch your mask in any way after you’ve put it on” direction is that presumably (and correct me if I’m wrong) it’s because there could be COVID-19 on it, from aerosols in the air you’re breathing settling on the mask. Wouldn’t that also be the case on your shirt at the top of your chest, or your hat/beanie if you’re wearing one, etc.?
Masks are horrible things
“Horrible”? Irritating and annoying at times, perhaps, but back in January when masks were totally voluntary I was wearing a mask outside all the time for about a fortnight. And I was far from alone.
Isn’t much of the opposition to masks mere posturing and insecure individuals’ fear of what other people will think of them?
Amber,
I am angry over all this pondering about the sources of these ” mystery cases”. Where is the mystery? We heard on Friday that door knocks on prior day home quarantine folk ( that is, with confirmed C19) revealed 1 in 4 were not at home. Speers indicated this is more like 1 in 3, and has been a feature of attempted contact tracing for some time. For all we know ( data, what data?) some positive cases have never been contacted!
This should have set off all alarms, but apparently not. We were told Friday cases were referred to police, but the Police Minister made to mention of the crisis over the weekend-she speaks only of folk (not apparently positive ) driving to Wodonga for a burger ( bet they didn’t). Isn’t this completely missing the point. All mention of police fines omits reference to fines for not isolating, so I imagine there are none yet.
As with hotel quarantine, and allowing mingling of positive cases in aged care and now ( or maybe knowingly for some time) remaining relaxed about why we cannot contact or find positive community cases, this just shows a total lack of understanding of the dangers in handling known infectious people, as compared to the clearly less crucial ( though still crucial) issue of how we all generally behave, and where Brighton women go walking.
The Victorian Government knows there are hundreds or perhaps 1000 plus infectious Melbournians going to work, shopping or whatever, but leaves this “back gate” wide open, and wants to talk only of general behaviours.
There is your source! Yes, it may be that one or two hotel cases started this wave, but if 1 in 3 community cases aren’t at home, they are by definition spreading C19 all over town, and in terms of pure mathematics, this is by far a bigger concern.
Mystery? The only mystery is why this is being ignored. Have the police or contact tracers no power to stomp on this? Perhaps the State of Emergency is seeking to deal with this, but if so it is way too late, and makes a mockery of imposing further restrictions, until the obvious back gate is closed.
Amber, this article is nonsense. Any breakdown of transmissions won’t be true/false but statistically by proportions, and there won’t be a convenient single story about transmissions, since transmissions will occur any way they can.
You haven’t used any data here and plenty of data are available: like the rate at which ‘Under Investigation’ cases are breaking down into Local and Community transmissions and whether that is trending up or down over time, the viability periods of Sars-Cov-2 on different surfaces, the viability of Sars-Cov-2 in aerosol form, the efficacy of masks against aerosol transmission and whether we have data on actual aerosol transmissions.
A journalist who doesn’t understand science cannot effectively do science reporting, nor offer commentary on science, much less debunk myths. Your attempt to boil data analysis into simple true/false myths is adding to the heat, but shedding little light.
You need to read deeper Amber, and not be scared of numbers.
I agree entirely and fast becoming tired of crickey’s method of reporting on sars Cov 2.
There seems to be an enthusiasm for negative criticism rather than the positive and factual of which there is need.
I have recently subscribed for the first time but will question wether I resubscribe.
Do you get some kind of kick out of writing a patronising and personally insulting response like this, in which you make unsubstantiated accusations about the writer’s methods and grasp of mathematics etc?
This article is, in fact, a well-written and factually pretty accurate piece, highly useful for educating the general public, many of whom are not au fait with medical language, research methodology and statistical nitty-gritty, or likely to want to read medical articles directly in Lancet etc. Articles like this are important for getting the main messages about this pandemic out to the general public. The public needs to properly grasp the simple and the practical before anything else – the main point is to help people adopt safer behaviours, to help stop the spread of the pandemic.
And if I were to grade the scientific usefulness of your own post, or its method of communicating, or whether there is any evidence of a good grasp on science and statistics in it (and that’s something I’ve done professionally for decades), I’m afraid you’d not qualify for a pass.
Thank you, Amber – for showing that even people who aren’t science specialists can write good articles on useful basics for public education during this pandemic – by informing themselves from reputable sources and applying their intelligence, and also, crucially, through understanding their own limitations so they can seek clarification where they need it. Best wishes and stay safe.
Susan wrote: This article is, in fact, a well-written and factually pretty accurate piece
I support Amber’s contributions to Crikey, have thanked her for some reports in the past and criticised other reports for not being deep enough. Based on her past performance I believe that science reporting is not among her strengths as it is not for many journalists yet I am strongly supportive of journalists bringing more science reporting into public interest journalism by seeking to understand and discuss the science better, rather than by (say) quoting answers to oversimplified questions as I believe Amber has done here.
My response was motivated by a genuine concern that in an emerging and nuanced public policy matter like a pandemic, asking overly simplified questions and reciting yes/no rote quotes is nothing like enough to help ordinary citizens make informed decisions.
I will be happy to explain why I think that, show what can be done better and cite places where it is being done better for comparison.
What is your rebuttal based on, Susan, beyond bare assertion?
Are you interested in a genuine discussion about the minimum standard Covid-19 reporting needs, or did you just do the very thing you accused me of?
Yesterday a BBC World Service announcer was discussing the COVID-19 situation in Victoria with an epidemiologist in Melbourne.
The announcer asked about the demographics of those who were disproportionately involved in the rise in infections and deaths.
The epidemiologist refused to answer the question.
And he is not the only one. Surely not everyone is as likely as everyone else to have contributed to the surge. If we knew who they were, the lockdowns could be more targeted and the economy would be subjected to less damage.
So were they BLM protesters? Posturing red-necks? Halal slaughtermen? Partying teenagers? Old people who don’t speak English?
Maybe they were poorer casual workers and the epidemiologist didn’t want to further marginalise the marginalised.
Ryan, if what you suggest is right, how much is this obfuscation (no matter how well-meaning) adding to the burden on our hospitals and on the economy?
With the increasing evidence of ongoing morbidities among people who have recovered, surely it’s time to look at the data rather than deferring to sentimentality.
If poorer casual workers are a major cause, there should be a campaign to protect them, not to ignore them.
Why are we not told to wash our face?
If Coronavirus on our face were not ‘immediately’ going to infect us (there has been nothing I have found that measures how long the virus is on our face/nose/mouth/eyes before we are infected but it will not be instantaneous) then we should have time to remove it from our skin.
But how often would we need to do that, if we are regularly washing our hands after touching something, or wearing a mask, or keeping distant from sources of aerosol droplets etc?
It would seem reasonable to me to be washing our face a few times per day (maybe three plus times) – day, during showering, shaving, preparing for/removing make up, upon waking up, before or after eating or if we are hot and sweaty or or face feels dry and needs moisturising etc, etc.
But there are many who do not do these things, life can be busy, stressful, work can be physical and dirty or our environment may not provide facilities that makes face washing possible, etc so spending time looking after ourselves is not possible or prioritised.
Being in a work place without capacity for physical distancing, personal facilities for face, let alone hand, washing and where wearing face protection is not easy, would contribute to the development of clusters for the spreading of the virus.
I remember as a child being told at meal times to “Go wash your face and hands, before you sit down.”
Maybe we should be doing that, at least, now!
Maybe, whatever the cohort is that are represented in the Victorian COVID numbers, there should be an education program about more regular face washing. Masks do not clean the face, they cover up what is already there when a face has not been washed.
The poll in the article, below, though not really ‘scientific’, was showing in a sample of approximately 1500 responders that only 60% of people were washing their face once, or more times, per day.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/how-often-wash-face_l_5e7e07b6c5b661492265f7f6?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003
With the number being released for Victoria on Wednesday (725 new cases), from an epidemiological perspective don’t we have to regard the situation in Victoria as being a deferred first wave, not a second wave? If this is the case, expect all other states to resume their first wave some time soon.