Airborne transmission is the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19
Transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were studied by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. Mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public.

Various mitigation measures have been implemented to fight the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including widely adopted social distancing and mandated face covering. However, assessing the effectiveness of those intervention practices hinges on the understanding of virus transmission, which remains uncertain.

The governments’ responses to the COVID pandemic have so far differed significantly worldwide. Swift actions to the initial outbreak were undertaken in China, as reflected by nearly simultaneous implementation of various aggressive mitigation measures. On the other hand, the response to the pandemic was generally slow in the western world, and implementation of the intervention measures occurred only consecutively. Clearly, the responsiveness of the mitigation measures governed the evolution, scope, and magnitude of the pandemic globally.

Curbing the COVID-19 relies not only on decisive and sweeping actions but also, critically, on the scientific understanding of the virus transmission routes, which determines the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. In the United States, social distancing and stay-at-home measures, in conjunction with hand sanitizing, were implemented during the early stage of the pandemic (March 16). These measures minimized short-range contact transmission but did not prevent long-range airborne transmission, responsible for the inefficient containing of the pandemic in the United States.

By analysing the trend and mitigation measures in Wuhan, China, Italy, and New York City, from January 23 to May 9, 2020, authors of a recent research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences illustrated that the impacts of mitigation measures were discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Their analysis revealed that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the pandemic trends in the three epicenters. Is is estimated that this protective measure alone significantly reduced the number of infections by over 78,000 in Italy from April 6 to May 9 and over 66,000 in New York City from April 17 to May 9.

Mandated face covering, such as those implemented in China, Italy, and NYC, seems to have effectively prevented airborne transmission by blocking atomization and inhalation of virus-bearing aerosols and contact transmission by blocking viral shedding of droplets. While the combined face-covering and social distancing measures offered dual protection against the virus transmission routes, the timing and sequence in implementing the measures also exhibited distinct outcomes during the pandemic.

For example, social distancing measures, including city lockdown and stay-at-home orders, were implemented well before face covering was mandated in Italy and NYC, and this sequence left an extended window (28 days in Italy and 32 days in NYC) for largely uninterrupted airborne transmission to spread the disease. The simultaneous implementation of face covering and social distancing, such as that undertaken in China, was most optimal, and this configuration, in conjunction with extensive testing and contact tracing, was responsible for the curve flattening in China.

Also, there likely existed remnants of virus transmission after the implementation of regulatory measures, because of circumstances when the measures were not practical or were disobeyed and/or imperfection of the measures. Such limitations, which have been emphasized by the WHO, spurred on controversial views on the validity of wearing face masks to prevent the virus transmission during the pandemic.

However, it is implausible that the limitations of mitigation measures alone contributed dominantly to the global pandemic trend, as exemplified by the success in China. The study suggests that the failure in containing the propagation of COVID-19 pandemic worldwide is largely attributed to the unrecognized importance of airborne virus transmission.

The inadequate knowledge on virus transmission has inevitably hindered development of effective mitigation policies and resulted in unstoppable propagation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Airborne transmission, particularly via nascent aerosols from human atomization, is highly virulent and represents the dominant route for the transmission of this disease.

While the WHO and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have emphasized the prevention of contact transmission, both WHO and CDC have largely ignored the importance of the airborne transmission route. The current mitigation measures, such as social distancing, quarantine, and isolation implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public.

The difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic worldwide. We conclude that wearing of face masks in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent interhuman transmission, and this inexpensive practice, in conjunction with extensive testing, quarantine, and contact tracking, poses the most probable fighting opportunity to stop the COVID-19 pandemic, prior to the development of a vaccine.

It is also important to emphasize that sound science should be effectively communicated to policy makers and should constitute the prime foundation in decision-making amid this pandemic. Implementing policies without a scientific basis could lead to catastrophic consequences, particularly in light of attempts to reopen the economy in many countries. Clearly, integration between science and policy is crucial to formulation of effective emergency responses by policy makers and preparedness by the public for the current and future public health pandemics.

REFERENCES:

  1. Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19. Renyi Zhang, Yixin Li, Annie L. Zhang, Yuan Wang, Mario J. Molina. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jun 2020, 202009637; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2009637117
  2. World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports/. Accessed 9 May 2020.
  3. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) – Social distancing, quarantine, and isolation. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html. Accessed 9 May 2020.

further
reading

cosmetic products

May Butylphenyl Methylpropional be used in Cosmetic Products?

Butylphenyl Methylpropional, also known as Lilial, is a fragrance ingredient that has been used for years in several cosmetic and non-cosmetic products. Nevertheless, some concerns have been expressed regarding the use of this ingredient and its risk to consumers. According to an amendment to the CLP Regulation, the use of Butylphenyl Methylpropional will be prohibited in cosmetic products from 1st March 2022.

Read More »
cosmetic products

How are Cosmetic Products Regulated in the United Arab Emirates?

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are an emerging market for the beauty industry. Cosmetics and personal care products supplied or sold in the UAE must comply with the health and safety requirements set out in UAE legislation. Overall, the process for importing a cosmetic product into the UAE market from the European Union can be quite straightforward since the UAE has aligned several of its requirements with the European Cosmetic Regulation.

Read More »
cosmetic products

European Commission Report on Nanomaterials – 2021

The European Commission is required to submit to the European Parliament and the Council an annual status report on the use of nanomaterials in cosmetic products and to review the provisions concerning nanomaterials in the European Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. In July 2021, the Commission has issued its latest annual report on this subject.

Read More »
cosmetic products

New Labelling Requirements for Cosmetic Products in China

The new Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulation (CSAR) was enacted in China. The National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has released standards for the testing of cosmetic products’ safety profile and efficacy claims. The NMPA has also published the Administrative Measures on Cosmetics Labelling, an updated set of requirements for the label of cosmetic products made available in the Chinese market.

Read More »
cosmetic products

50th Amendment to the IFRA Code of Practice

On June 30, IFRA announced the notification of the 50th Amendment to the IFRA Standards. The Standards form the basis for the globally accepted and recognized risk management system for the safe use of fragrance ingredients and are part of the IFRA Code of Practice. The amendment introduced one update to the Standards and one new prohibited substance – Mintlacton.

Read More »
medical devices

EN ISO 13485:2016 – Amendment 11 has been published!

The European standardisation bodies CEN and CENELEC published EN ISO 13485:2016+A11:2021 featuring new annexes ZA and ZB that link the requirements of the MDR (Regulation EU 2017/745) and the IVDR (Regulation EU 2017/746), respectively, to specific clauses of the standard.

Read More »
cosmetic products

How are Cosmetic Products Regulated in India?

The different expectations and needs of consumers are continually changing and therefore the cosmetic industry needs to be gradually evolve to meet the new consumer’s demand. In this regard, India has recently introduced some regulatory updates to ensure that cosmetics placed on the market are safer for all consumers.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Is Phenoxyethanol Safe for Use in All Cosmetic Products?

Phenoxyethanol is a common preservative used in cosmetic and personal care products worldwide. It has been subject to various safety assessments and most concluded about its safety under the current most frequent uses. Nevertheless, some concerns were raised by the French Agency ANSM, particularly regarding its use in products intended for the nappy area in children up to 3 years old.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Cannabis-Derived Ingredients in Cosmetic Products

Cannabis-derived ingredients are popular compounds with interesting properties. There is specific EU and national legislation regarding cannabis-derived ingredients, identifying which extracts and derivatives may be used in cosmetic products. There are several aspects to consider to ensure compliance when adding these compounds to cosmetics and personal care products.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Cosmetic Products Testing in the European Union

A cosmetic product which is made available on the European Union market needs to prove that it is safe for consumers. Apart from the mandatory testing, depending on the claims to be used or the type of cosmetic product to be placed on the market, additional tests may be required.

Read More »
COVID-19

New EU Commission Recommendation for PPE and Medical Devices – COVID-19

PPE and Medical Devices have proven to be essential for healthcare workers in the efforts to contain the COVID-19 outbreak. In March 2020, the EU Commission urged the economic operators to increase rapid supply into the market. Currently, the Commission considers that the conditions for exceptional access to market are no longer met, limiting the placing of PPE and Medical Devices which have not successfully undergone the relevant conformity assessment procedures applicable on the EU market.

Read More »