Did Spielberg kill a dinosaur? Facebook users think so

Beijing, Jun 18:  Besides washing hands and wearing masks, it is also important to close the toilet lid before flushing to contain the spread of COVID-19, as per a new study.

According to a new study cited by The Washington Post, scientists who simulated toilet water and airflows, have found that flushing a toilet can generate a plume of virus-containing aerosol particles that is widespread and can linger in the air long enough to be inhaled by others. The novel coronavirus has been found in the faeces of COVID-19 patients, but it remains unknown whether such clouds could contain enough virus to infect a person.

"Flushing will lift the virus up from the toilet bowl," co-author Ji-Xiang Wang, who researches fluids at Yangzhou University in Yangzhou, China, said in an email. Wang stressed that bathroom users "need to close the lid first and then trigger the flushing process" and wash hands properly if the closure is not possible. As one flushes the toilet with the lids open, bits of faecal matter swish around so violently that they can be propelled into the air, become aerosolised and then settle on the surroundings.

Experts call it the "toilet plume".Age-old studies have been made to understand the potential for airborne transmission of infectious disease via sewage, and the toilet plume's role. Scientists who have seeded toilet bowls with bacteria and viruses have found contamination of seats, flush handles, bathroom floors and nearby surfaces. This is one reason we are told to wash our hands after visiting the toilet. Public bathrooms are well known to contribute to the spread of viruses that transmit via ingestion, such as the noroviruses that haunt cruise ships. However, their role in the transmission of respiratory viruses has not been established, said Charles P Gerba, a microbiologist at the University of Arizona."The risk is not zero, but how great a risk it is, we do not know. The big unknown is how much virus is infectious in the toilet when you flush it ... and how much virus does it take to cause an infection," said Gerba, who has studied the intersection of toilets and infectious disease for 45 years.

A study published in March in the journal Gastroenterology found significant amounts of coronavirus in the stool of patients and determined that viral RNA lasted in faeces even after the virus cleared from the patients` respiratory tracts. While another study in the journal Lancet found coronavirus in faeces up to a month after the illness had passed.

Scientists around the world are now studying sewage to track the spread of the virus. According to the researchers, the presence of the virus in excrement and the gastrointestinal tract raises the prospect of transmission via toilets, because many COVID-19 patients experience diarrhoea or vomiting.

A study of air samples in two hospitals in Wuhan, China found that although coronavirus aerosols in isolation wards and ventilated patient rooms were very low, "it was higher in the toilet areas used by the patients".The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says it remains "unclear whether the virus found in faeces may be capable of causing COVID-19," and "there has not been any confirmed report of the virus spreading from faeces to a person".For now, the CDC characterises the risk as low based on observations from previous outbreaks of other coronaviruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Wang decided to use computer models to simulate toilet plumes while isolating at home, as per Chinese government orders and thinking about how a fluids researcher "could contribute to the global fight against the virus".

Published in the journal Physics of Fluids, the study found that flushing of both single-inlet toilets, which push water into the bowl from one port, and annular-inlet toilets, which pour water into the bowl from the rim's surrounding edge with even greater energy, results in "massive upward transport of virus".

Particles can reach heights of more than three feet and float in the air for more than a minute, it found. The paper recommends not just lid-closing and hand-washing, it urges manufacturers to produce toilets that close and self-clean automatically. It also suggests that toilet-users should wipe down the seat. Gerba, however, said seats should not be a major concern.

Research has found that public and household toilet seats are typically the cleanest surfaces in restrooms, he said, probably because so many people already wipe them off before using them. Also, he said of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, "I don't think it's butt-borne, so I don`t think you have to worry."Gerba, who has been studying coronavirus transmission for two decades to investigate the role of a toilet flushing in a SARS outbreak stresses "flush and run" when using a public toilet without a lid. Gerba also said that people should wash hands well post-flushing and use hand sanitiser after leaving the restroom. "Choose well-ventilated bathrooms if possible and do not hang around the restroom in any case," added Gerba.

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

In a first, the Supreme Court on Friday allowed the service of summons and notices, a necessity in almost all legal proceedings, through instant messenger like WhatsApp as well as by e-mail and fax.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde observed that it has been brought to the notice of the court that it is not feasible to visit post offices for service of notices, summons, and pleadings. The bench also comprising Justices AS Bopanna and R Subhash Reddy observed that notice and summons should be sent through e-mail on the same day along with instant message through WhatsApp and other phone messenger services.

The bench clarified that all methods should be deployed for a valid service on the party. "Two blue ticks would convey that the receiver has seen the notice," noted the bench.

The bench declined the request of the Attorney General for specifically naming WhatsApp as a mode of effectuating service. The top court noted that it would not be practical to specify only WhatsApp. The apex court also permitted RBI to extend the validity of cheques in the backdrop of lockdown to contain the coronavirus outbreak.

Senior advocate V Giri representing RBI informed the bench that he had circulated the note regarding validity of a cheque as directions issued on the previous hearing.

The bench noted that it will be in discretion of the RBI to issue orders which are suitable to alter the validity of the period of a cheque.

During an earlier hearing on the matter on July 7, the Attorney General contended before the top court that the Centre had some reservations in connection with the utilization of mobile applications like WhatsApp and other apps for service of summons. The Centre's top law officer informed the apex court that these apps claimed to be encrypted, and they were not trustworthy.

The RBI counsel had contended before the top court that it was considering clarifying the validity of a cheque which has been reduced to 3 months from 6 months.