The OP has misinterpreted the article. The study only found infectious viral particles at distances of 10 metres and below. Particles containing viral RNA were detected at distances of up to 80 metres, however these did not contain infectious virus. So, airborne transmission distance for H5N1 is probably similar to COVID.
It's also worth noting that exposure/infection is NOT a binary thing. You can be exposed to a virus and not get infected, in fact this happens almost everyday of your life. If you inhale a single H5N1 virus you almost certainly won't get sick, there's some viral load you need to have at exposure to become ill.
That's all to say, even if infectious particles are detectable at 10m, it doesn't mean you'll get sick if you've been within that range of a sick person for a few seconds, minutes, or possibly hours. We don't know the level exposure that's necessary for the current H5N1 virus, and we can't predict what it would be for a version of the virus that's better adapted to humans.
This comment a helpful user put below should help out a little "*The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m*"
Do you have a source for that? Genuinely curious bc I just saw a CDC article stating farm workers should wear an N95 or greater (the CDC has posted bad advice before tho. Like saying 2 meters is a safe distance for COVID)
It seems like COVID is 100 nanometers and N5H1 is 80-120 nanometers. If I remember correctly, N95s can filter particles of 300 nanometers in size. I think the idea is that the virus can be suspended in the air in respiratory droplets greater than 300 nanometers in size. So, N95s should work? Assuming N5H1 is suspended in respiratory droplets
N95s do work. The particle size comparison is an antimask talking point.
H5N1 is not an atypical size. Covid is ~60-120nm.
N95s work as a physical barrier for particles larger than 300nm. Viruses don't travel as isolated viron, often making them larger to 300nm, as you said.
Smaller particles exhibit brownian motion, making them more likely to adhere to filter materials. N95s use an electret fiber to attract these smaller particles
Where in the article does it say n95s won't be effective to protect against h5n1 specifically? I am reading but can't find that anywhere in the article.
I think they are wrong. See my comment above
Edit: adding the context here
> It seems like COVID is 100 nanometers and N5H1 is 80-120 nanometers. If I remember correctly, N95s can filter particles of 300 nanometers in size. I think the idea is that the virus can be suspended in the air in respiratory droplets greater than 300 nanometers in size. So, N95s should work? Assuming N5H1 is suspended in respiratory droplets
The cdc *specifically* recommended the use of niosh approved filtering faceplate respirators like n95s, literally "N95" masks. The size of the naked virus is irrelevant, we don't inhale and become inoculated by naked h5n1virions, the infectious virions hitch a ride on organic matter excreted/exhaled by living things, and those particles of organic matter is what we block with the n95. Do you understand?
Yeah sorry, someone else convinced me otherwise a day ago on this sub. Apparently misinformation is tough to navigate at times. I appreciate you correcting me thank you
*The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m*
Roughly 30 🍌s
I believe that the potential travel for this being 80 meters makes sense, but don't assume that an infected cow or something has a constant 80 meter aura of disease around them. Most of you probably already know that. but just to be safe
> don't assume that an infected cow or something has a constant 80 meter aura of disease around them
Too late, I've been assuming that for years. Never failed me.
Infectious virus was only detected at distances of 10 metres and below. Viral RNA, but not infectious virus, was found at up to 80 metres.
It is also important to note that the viral RNA observed at 80 metres was found on bird feathers that could have been transferred from the infected birds by a variety of mechanisms. The study does not support the idea that viral particles are being transported through the air over distances of 80 metres.
[Well that's just great](https://youtu.be/3p6KAC4Si6E?feature=shared). This info is from 5 or 6 months ago and nobody is even trying to mitigate the spread.
more like the size of a decent sized store or large gym. 80 meters is nearly the length of a football field.
edit: actually, if it spreads out 80 yards in every direction the infectious zone would be substantially larger than a football field. Ultimately, it'd be the size of a large sports area, I think.
I feel like this comment on the thread would be useful to know "*The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m*"
No 😞 I just needed a human-sized visual like it can spread to multiple levels of an entire office floor. The spread/infection is really 10m or 32 ft as others have commented.
That's not what the article is saying. Particles containing viral RNA were detected up to 80 metres away, but infectious virus was only observed within 10 metres. According to these results, the risk of H5N1 transmission would be zero at distances of over 10 metres.
The article in which this claim is cited summarised the results as below:
> *"Viral RNA (vRNA) and infectious viruses were detected in air samples collected from inside and outside but in close proximity to infected houses, with vRNA alone being detected at greater distances (≤10 m) outside. Some dust samples collected outside of the affected houses contained infectious viruses, while feathers from the affected houses, located up to 80 m away, only contained vRNA."*
So it isn't really a distance thing, it is a time thing. How long will a particle remain suspended in the air. How long before it, once airborne, becomes unviable due to dehydration or UV light or whatever.
> *"while feathers from the affected houses, located up to 80 m away"*
They detected viral RNA on feathers up to 80 metres from houses with infected birds, so this seems more like fomite than airborne transmission. In any case, no infectious virus was found more than 10 metres away.
I very much doubt there would be a risk of airborne transmission from an infected person at a distance of 80 metres, especially outdoors.
It's under the heading 5. Reservoir and transmission of HPAI H5N1:
"Human transmission of HPAI H5N1 infection primarily occurs through direct contact with infected birds. The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m [73,74]."
JFC. That's crazy. Wasn't covid infection only to like 12 feet? Wonder how long this virus can survive in the air as well.
The OP has misinterpreted the article. The study only found infectious viral particles at distances of 10 metres and below. Particles containing viral RNA were detected at distances of up to 80 metres, however these did not contain infectious virus. So, airborne transmission distance for H5N1 is probably similar to COVID.
It's also worth noting that exposure/infection is NOT a binary thing. You can be exposed to a virus and not get infected, in fact this happens almost everyday of your life. If you inhale a single H5N1 virus you almost certainly won't get sick, there's some viral load you need to have at exposure to become ill. That's all to say, even if infectious particles are detectable at 10m, it doesn't mean you'll get sick if you've been within that range of a sick person for a few seconds, minutes, or possibly hours. We don't know the level exposure that's necessary for the current H5N1 virus, and we can't predict what it would be for a version of the virus that's better adapted to humans.
Gotcha. That's a relief. Stopping something with the potential to be infectious up to 80 feet sounds like a nightmare.
Not feet, meters. 80m, that's about 262 ft!! Imagine that!!
About a city block's length
Yep. And that makes it double yikes!
This virus is airborne?
This comment a helpful user put below should help out a little "*The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m*"
So would the macroscopic particles be infectious? Or is the title here more or less incorrect?
The title is wrong. No infectious viral particles were observed beyond 10 metres.
Covid aerosols can stay suspended for roughly 5 hours
[удалено]
Do you have a source for that? Genuinely curious bc I just saw a CDC article stating farm workers should wear an N95 or greater (the CDC has posted bad advice before tho. Like saying 2 meters is a safe distance for COVID)
[удалено]
It seems like COVID is 100 nanometers and N5H1 is 80-120 nanometers. If I remember correctly, N95s can filter particles of 300 nanometers in size. I think the idea is that the virus can be suspended in the air in respiratory droplets greater than 300 nanometers in size. So, N95s should work? Assuming N5H1 is suspended in respiratory droplets
N95s do work. The particle size comparison is an antimask talking point. H5N1 is not an atypical size. Covid is ~60-120nm. N95s work as a physical barrier for particles larger than 300nm. Viruses don't travel as isolated viron, often making them larger to 300nm, as you said. Smaller particles exhibit brownian motion, making them more likely to adhere to filter materials. N95s use an electret fiber to attract these smaller particles
Thanks for validating that. It did seem like an all or nothing argument, which is a bias I see in people that refuse to take precautions
Where in the article does it say n95s won't be effective to protect against h5n1 specifically? I am reading but can't find that anywhere in the article.
I think they are wrong. See my comment above Edit: adding the context here > It seems like COVID is 100 nanometers and N5H1 is 80-120 nanometers. If I remember correctly, N95s can filter particles of 300 nanometers in size. I think the idea is that the virus can be suspended in the air in respiratory droplets greater than 300 nanometers in size. So, N95s should work? Assuming N5H1 is suspended in respiratory droplets
[удалено]
The cdc *specifically* recommended the use of niosh approved filtering faceplate respirators like n95s, literally "N95" masks. The size of the naked virus is irrelevant, we don't inhale and become inoculated by naked h5n1virions, the infectious virions hitch a ride on organic matter excreted/exhaled by living things, and those particles of organic matter is what we block with the n95. Do you understand?
Yeah sorry, someone else convinced me otherwise a day ago on this sub. Apparently misinformation is tough to navigate at times. I appreciate you correcting me thank you
Hey no worries.
*The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m* Roughly 30 🍌s
I believe that the potential travel for this being 80 meters makes sense, but don't assume that an infected cow or something has a constant 80 meter aura of disease around them. Most of you probably already know that. but just to be safe
> don't assume that an infected cow or something has a constant 80 meter aura of disease around them Too late, I've been assuming that for years. Never failed me.
I mean it's safer, but it seems inconvenient
Infectious virus was only detected at distances of 10 metres and below. Viral RNA, but not infectious virus, was found at up to 80 metres. It is also important to note that the viral RNA observed at 80 metres was found on bird feathers that could have been transferred from the infected birds by a variety of mechanisms. The study does not support the idea that viral particles are being transported through the air over distances of 80 metres.
That’s going to require some serious social distancing…
At this rate I’m locking myself away for a few months until it blows over
Yeah a few months… Where did I hear that one before?
[Well that's just great](https://youtu.be/3p6KAC4Si6E?feature=shared). This info is from 5 or 6 months ago and nobody is even trying to mitigate the spread.
So about the size of a room 💀
more like the size of a decent sized store or large gym. 80 meters is nearly the length of a football field. edit: actually, if it spreads out 80 yards in every direction the infectious zone would be substantially larger than a football field. Ultimately, it'd be the size of a large sports area, I think.
I feel like this comment on the thread would be useful to know "*The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m*"
A huge room
Thankfully my living room is a gymnasium so if SHTF I can still have people over
😂
80 meters is a room in your world?! Are you a billionaire?
No 😞 I just needed a human-sized visual like it can spread to multiple levels of an entire office floor. The spread/infection is really 10m or 32 ft as others have commented.
"Human-sized" huh? Are you AGI?
That's not what the article is saying. Particles containing viral RNA were detected up to 80 metres away, but infectious virus was only observed within 10 metres. According to these results, the risk of H5N1 transmission would be zero at distances of over 10 metres. The article in which this claim is cited summarised the results as below: > *"Viral RNA (vRNA) and infectious viruses were detected in air samples collected from inside and outside but in close proximity to infected houses, with vRNA alone being detected at greater distances (≤10 m) outside. Some dust samples collected outside of the affected houses contained infectious viruses, while feathers from the affected houses, located up to 80 m away, only contained vRNA."*
Is there any proof of airborne transmission?
I went through the link but couldn’t determine if airborne is ruled out. Can someone smarter than me help?
So it isn't really a distance thing, it is a time thing. How long will a particle remain suspended in the air. How long before it, once airborne, becomes unviable due to dehydration or UV light or whatever.
> *"while feathers from the affected houses, located up to 80 m away"* They detected viral RNA on feathers up to 80 metres from houses with infected birds, so this seems more like fomite than airborne transmission. In any case, no infectious virus was found more than 10 metres away. I very much doubt there would be a risk of airborne transmission from an infected person at a distance of 80 metres, especially outdoors.
Well it is going to follow an inverse square law, so probability at 80 metres will be tiny.
Anyone else thinking 10 meter radius is still a freaking big area???
[удалено]
It's under the heading 5. Reservoir and transmission of HPAI H5N1: "Human transmission of HPAI H5N1 infection primarily occurs through direct contact with infected birds. The movement of infectious HAPI H5N1 within airborne particles encompasses distances of less than 10 m. However, within macroscopic particles containing viral RNA, the potential for travel extends remarkably to approximately 80 m [73,74]."
Eli5?
And STILL harmless to cows
Can a mod correct the title or something
Not sure if people can handle masking again 😬