NY Times: "Viruses are usually deadlier in larger amounts", supports even makeshift face mask use.

[tableturner]

From the article:

"The importance of viral dose is being overlooked in discussions of the coronavirus. As with any other poison, viruses are usually more dangerous in larger amounts. Small initial exposures tend to lead to mild or asymptomatic infections, while larger doses can be lethal.

"From a policy perspective, we need to consider that not all exposures to the coronavirus may be the same. Stepping into an office building that once had someone with the coronavirus in it is not as dangerous as sitting next to that infected person for an hourlong train commute.

"This may seem obvious, but many people are not making this distinction. We need to focus more on preventing high-dose infection."

snip

"Virus experts know that viral dose affects illness severity. In the lab, mice receiving a low dose of virus clear it and recover, while the same virus at a higher dose kills them. Dose sensitivity has been observed for every common acute viral infection that has been studied in lab animals, including coronaviruses."

More at:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/opinion/coronavirus-viral-dose.html?smid=em-share

So....even makeshift face masks with limited efficacy are helpful at minimizing the severity of viral illnesses.

[marybourg]

1. Yup. Viral load matters.This is not polonium.

A package that was touched three days ago by a person still up on her feet is not in the same catagory as being coughed on by a known carrier.

[Disaffected]

4. Not to pick a nit but

dosage is a factor in pretty much anything that is poisonous or toxic, even polonium. As the saying goes, "the dosage makes the poison".

Anyhow, I imagine what's going on in the case of a virus load, a small exposure gives the immune system time to mount a defence (produce antibodies) before the virus replicates sufficiently to cause serious illness. A large slug of virus at the outset can overwhelm the body b/f the immune system kicks in.

I even wonder if it would be beneficial to deliberately infect people with a small viral load to get this effect and build immunity rather than risk chance exposure to a larger load (sort of like the current practice of vaccination with an attenuated version of a virus).

[marybourg]

6. Agree.

[Turbineguy]

2. Even a lousy 50% efficient mask

cuts your chance of a bad outcome in half.

Every bit helps.

[customerserviceguy]

3. Just yesterday

I read my copy of the New Yorker, and there was a great article about this:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/06/how-does-the-coronavirus-behave-inside-a-patient

It's not too techie for most folks, if you've ever tried to read an article in a medical journal, you'll be in over your head in about the second paragraph, usually. This one is not only pretty understandable by non-medical professionals, it's got some interesting history in it, too.

[AlexSFCA]

5. this explains why some healthy health workers suffer horribly and die

they come into contact with extreme levels of virus daily.

[Disaffected]

7. May well be:

I wonder if this is still in the speculation realm amongst med professions or is becoming mainstream?

[LizBeth]

8. This is what I have concluded reading all the stuff coming our way. Reduce the odds.

Disinfect, isolate as much as possible, protect face and hands, wash hands when going out. Disinfect. Keep the odds down. ODC can cause people like me to obsess, seeing germ in all things. Get the mail, credit card. The best I can do it just lower the reduce the odds.