CIRCLE WITH A DOT

I pay close attention to this author list.

Respiratory protection and the precautionary principle in the current Andes virus outbreak

https://trishgreenhalgh.substack.com/p/fb368a53-f848-4b25-86de-aae5358f52be?open=false

> An open letter to the World Health Organization on 11th May 2026 by Don Milton, Trisha Greenhalgh, David Fisman, Amanda Kvalsvig, Lidia Morawska, Joe Vipond and Jonathan Samet

> The evidence supporting respiratory person-to-person transmission of ANDV is now substantial and comes from epidemiological, biological, and operational observations. It has been documented repeatedly for nearly 30 years. The 2018–19 Epuyén outbreak in Argentina is especially instructive. Martínez and colleagues reconstructed transmission chains involving 34 confirmed infections and 11 deaths after a single zoonotic introduction. Transmission was amplified by symptomatic individuals attending crowded social events, including a birthday gathering and a wake.

The paper of note is this:

"Super-Spreaders" and Person-to-Person Transmission of Andes Virus in Argentina - Martínez et al. N Engl J Med. 2020

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33264545/

@augieray
Sorry, which ones? I would like to look more closely as maybe I missed them.
@Gdac

@augieray
The common cold does not kill 64000 us citizens a year. Thats ~2x the 2019 car fatality rate in the US. And it's almost certainly an undercount.

The paper stream relentlessly crossing our desks laughs at this typical minimizer characterization of becoming "just a cold" and "nuisance". The underlying mechanisms have not changed. SARS2 did not suddenly change the receptors it binds to.

This "evolution to mild" trope is not new and has been argued extensively before. I have still not seen any actual evidence that shows it's an actual evolutionary pattern. It is always a ID or IPAC minimizer argument from authority.

IMO its just same old survivorship bias, normalcy bias and optimism bias with big heapings of merchant of doubt.

@augieray
Augie,

I understand your analysis but am confused by your thread.

I didn't understand why you conclude one is more accurate than the other. The previous forecast is in the ballpark for the current number so the model is somewhat consistent within the probably huge error bars.

My operating perspective is the two models give an upper and lower model bound, and the likelihood is the answer lies in between. But we cannot know for sure either way - they both could be wrong.

I also watch Tara Moriarty's work which was calibrated to excess deaths.

I watch the trends more than the absolute risk numbers as a result, and use the models to bound the absolute risk, hoping they are in the ballpark.

Could you elaborate on the basis you use to prefer one over the other?

Hospitals are dangerous places. Air purification would mitigate the risk. Too bad most infection control professionals have voted for job security over patient safety, as I recently experienced up close and personally.

This is by no means the first paper to make these points.

> Despite good air quality (mean CO2 614 ppm), 39% of air samples had SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

> Hot spots for risk in the emergency ward include the acute care and waiting area.

> In critical care, hot spots include the tearoom and corridors near infected rooms.

> The risk of nosocomial outbreaks may be mitigated through air purifiers and masks.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosol and surface samples in high acuity hospital settings during community epidemic waves – implications for risk-based infection control

https://www.resmedjournal.com/article/S0954-6111%2826%2900080-6/fulltext

COVID-19 Infection and Coronary Plaque Progression: An Early Warning of a Potential Public Health Crisis

> Patients with COVID-19 infection had a higher risk of target lesion failure (10.4% vs 3.1%; adjusted hazard ratio, 2.90; P < .001) and major adverse cardiovascular events (20.1% vs 3.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 4.8; P = .002) compared with those without infection.

Just a moment...

(pubs.rsna.org)

#covid19 #sars2 #SARSCoV2

Tissue-Based T Cell Activation and Viral RNA Persist for Up to Two Years Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection - PMC

> Total-body PET imaging and microscopy analysis of rectosigmoid biopsies reveal prolonged T cell activation and #SARSCoV2 RNA persistence following #COVID19.

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

#sars2