Airborne Coronavirus Transmission Must Be Taken Seriously, 239 Scientists Tell WHO
Scientists are urging the WHO to revisit their coronavirus guidance to focus more on airborne transmission and less on hand sanitizer and hygiene. John Lund / Photodisc / Getty Images
The World Health Organization (WHO) is holding the line on its stance that the respiratory droplets of the coronavirus fall quickly to the floor and are not infectious. Now, a group of 239 scientists is challenging that assertion, arguing that the virus is lingering in the air of indoor environments, infecting people nearby, as The New York Times reported.
The idea that the virus lingers in the air may explain why the virus is finding new victims to infect in clusters as people visit bars, restaurants, gyms and casinos worldwide.
In an open letter to the WHO, 239 scientists from 32 countries outlined the evidence that proves smaller particles can infect people, and are calling for the agency to revise its recommendations. The researchers plan to publish their letter, titled "It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19," in a scientific journal this week, according to The New York Times. The paper will be published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, according to The Washington Post.
"We are aware of the article and are reviewing its contents with our technical experts," WHO spokesman Tarik Jasarevic said in an email reply to a Reuters request for comment.
However, as recently as last Monday, the WHO published guidelines on stopping the spread of the virus in healthcare facilities that said airborne transmission of the virus is possible only after medical procedures that produce aerosols, or droplets smaller than 5 microns, or 5 millionths of a meter.
The fact that scientists resorted to a paper to pressure the WHO is unusual, analysts said to The Washington Post. It is likely to renew questions about the WHO's messaging.
"WHO's credibility is being undermined through a steady drip-drip of confusing messages, including asymptomatic spread, the use of masks, and now airborne transmission," said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University who provides technical assistance to the WHO.
Gostin did compliment the WHO for hosting regular briefings, noting that the organization is in a tricky situation because it "has to make recommendations for the entire world and it feels it needs irrefutable scientific proof before coming to a conclusion."
And yet, he sees the writing on the wall that "the public, and even scientists, will lose full confidence in WHO without clearer technical guidance," as The Washington Post reported.
The signatories of the letter do not think their letter should raise panic. Instead, it should make the WHO revisit their guidance to focus more on respiratory aspects of the virus and less on hand sanitizer and hygiene.
"There is no reason for fear. It is not like the virus has changed. We think it has been transmitted this way all along," said Jose Jimenez, a chemist at the University of Colorado who signed the paper, as The Washington Post reported. "Knowing about it helps target the measures to control the pandemic more accurately."
Jimenez added that the scientists' purpose in writing the letter was not to hurt the WHO, but merely to encourage it to consider new information.
"Our group of scientists doesn't want to do anything that would undermine the WHO as an organization," he said. "We only want it to adapt its guidance on aerosol transmission to the increasing evidence."
- Summer Heat Won't Kill the Coronavirus, New Study Says - EcoWatch ›
- Here's Why COVID-19 Can Spread So Easily at Gyms and Fitness ... ›
- Is the New Coronavirus Airborne? A Study From China Finds Evidence ›
- WHO Says Coronavirus Is Likely Airborne - EcoWatch ›
- German Scientists Run Concerts to Learn How Coronavirus Spreads - EcoWatch ›
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›