Review of animal transmission experiments of respiratory viruses: Implications for transmission risk of SARS ‐COV‐2 in humans via different routes

AbstractExploring transmission risk of different routes has major implications for epidemic control. However, disciplinary boundaries have impeded the dissemination of epidemic information, have caused public panic about “air transmission,” “air-conditioning transmission,” and “environment-to-human transmission,” and have triggered “hygiene theater.” Animal experiments provide experimental evidence for virus transmission, but more attention is paid to whether transmission is driven by droplets or aer osols and using the dichotomy to describe most transmission events. Here, according to characteristics of experiment setups, combined with patterns of human social interactions, we reviewed and grouped animal transmission experiments into four categories—close contact, short-range, fomite, and aer osol exposure experiments—and provided enlightenment, with experimental evidence, on the transmission risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-COV-2) in humans via different routes. When referring to “air transmission,” context should be showed in elaboration results, rather than whether close contact, short or long range is uniformly described as “air transmission.” Close contact and short range are the major routes. When face-to-face, unprotected, horizontally directional airflow does promote transmission, due to virus decay and dilution in air, the probability o f “air conditioning transmission” is low; the risk of “environment-to-...
Source: Risk Analysis - Category: International Medicine & Public Health Authors: Tags: ORIGINAL ARTICLE Source Type: research