Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not being medically up as some of you all are, I would like to ask if the covid 19 virus can infect you via a cut, to say your hand? I know if your hand is contaminated and you touch your mouth, nose or eyes it can enter your body, but what about a cut. I originally thought that it was an airborne thing only as it affects your lungs, and I could see if you touch your mouth then you breath it in off the surface of your mouth. However, if that is the case how does that work for the eyes. If it can enter through your eyes as it is easier to pass into your blood stream through the thinner skin / membrane, then can any entry point to your blood allow you to catch the virus? Internet seem to say no, but then makes me unsure of how it does? If some is able to explain that would be most helpful Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Chris - ask yourself a simple question. If it cannot enter into the body through the skin why do those working in healthcare iin ICU wear gloves, presumably as protection against exposure to the virus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Viruses are very specific as to which cells in the body they attack. It looks like coronavirus specifically target the cells in the respiratory track. They do not circulate in the blood. They grow in the respiratory tract and are emitted when you cough. They are transmitted either by directly breathing the aerosol produced by coughing or if your hands are contaminated with the virus particles and then you touch your face. They do stimulate an immune response which causes the body to produce antibodies which do circulate in the blood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks both, but I’m still not sure I fully get it! I was ok up to the point “or if your hands are contaminated with the virus particles and then you touch your face. They do stimulate an immune response which causes the body to produce antibodies which do circulate in the blood.” The problem I think is it is the body’s own immune response that fills up your lungs and kills you, so are you saying that when you touch your face the response is triggered ( and so does not have to get into the body?). If this is so what other parts of the body can elicit the immune response? If it does get into the blood stream can it also elicit the immune response? I get it that the antibodies produced will be in the blood, but to be of use the virus also has to be in the blood wouldn’t it? So a cut would infect you? Sorry for my confusion (It may be, I was in the sun to long at lunch time) Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Presumably why they wear gloves is to avoid spreading the virus around by touching things with contaminated hands. Equally, the reason we all wash our hands is not so that the virus doesn't go through our skin, but so that we don't spread it around.
|
 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
As AK said above, the coronavirus attaches to certain specific ‘receptors’ on cells in the respiratory tract and mucous membranes (nose, eyes, and mouth), and uses those cells’ replication mechanisms to reproduce. I’m not sure if the virus can enter through an open wound, and ‘travel’ to the target cells, but I wouldn’t bet against it. A virus, like any foreign body, has to be recognised by our immune system, for the immune response to be triggered. The virus then leaves the body either by the infected person coughing, through hand-mouth transmission (and onto surfaces), or through bodily fluids as mentioned here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41368-020-0075-9.
That’s why good hygiene practises and avoiding touching the face are recommended control measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
People wear gloves as an alternative to washing their hands, unless they are handling something like Ebola which can get through cuts on your hands. What they are meant to do is to wear the gloves for particular task and then dispose of them. Frequently many (most?) users either, keep them on as gloves are magic and protect you from all dangers or they roll them up and put them in their pocket to reuse. Either way, they end up spreading the germs in question around the place. When I worked in microbiology labs I rarely wore gloves. I washed my hands thoroughly when I left the lab (eg before going to the toilet!). When I did wear gloves it was usually to protect the work not to protect myself eg when I was doing tissue culture or molecular biology.
|
6 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was taught that was the reason why smoking in kitchens was banned long before the 2007 general workplave ban, to prevent mouth to hand contamination.
|
1 user thanked RVThompson for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
One of the problems with the concept that gloves can prevent the transfer of micro-organisms is that they can actually be the bearer. In a letter to the Journal of Hospital Infection (March 2010) the authors listed 25 cases where MRSA had been transmitted from a source to a site from which secondary infection could result. Of these for 21 (84%) the vector was the gloved hands of the health care worker! Ludlow HA, Swayne RL, Kearns AM et al, “Evidence from a UK teaching hospital that MRSA is primarily transmitted by the hands of healthcare workers”, Journal of Hospital Infection, 2010, 74, 266-270
|
2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thank you RVThompson for that link, a fair amount of reading and quite informative, but still not entirely sure after reading it. It did seem to be about dentists quite a bit. It obviously talked about breathing and saliva droplets spreading the virus, and via the mucus membranes of the eyes, nose and mouth. It also mentioned oral and faecal transmission. It did not mention cuts, however blood was mentioned twice, but seemed to be in the contact of an infected persons blood spreading it to others. The responses on the site seem slightly mixed. Chris and RVThompson seem to suggest yes and A Kurdziel is I think in the no camp, all people who’s comments I generally trust. I’m not thinking of gloves as such with regard my question. I was considering if someone with an open cut then touches a surface with the virus on, can it be transmitted to them via the entry wound.? Or do we just not know or be able to extrapolate from similar viruses. Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This virus was only identified 4 months ago. Viruses are tricky beast to characterise. It can take years and a lot of this is guesswork based on what we know from similar viruses. Often these “similar” viruses are actual model species which are easy to grow and examine. What happens in the real world is something that nobody knows for certain. We still don’t really know how long the virus remains viable on a surface for example, as this depends on thing like temperature humidity and the nature of the surface. Carrying out such exereients establish what is the real case, is expensive and tedious, so people tend to make assumptions and some tend to assume the worst and some the best.
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Very useful to hear from people who seem to know what they are talking about. I feel there has been an unhealthy obsession with PPE over recent weeks. I understand it has a place but it looks to me like most people commenting have no idea what it is doing. I have seen something this week for a clinical setting where "double gloving" was suggested to protect againts COVID-19. I can see no explanation for this from any scientific source. My view was that no gloves and hand washing would have been better for the case in point.
|
1 user thanked andybz for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
3 users thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have just looked at this piece from Wikipedia and I think it is quite good. In particular I like the way it distinguishes between respiratory droplets, which are produced by someone sneezing or coughing but settle down quite quickly and the airborne route for disease where the infectious particles float about for some time in the environment. Covid-19 is definitely transmitted as respiratory droplets but the airborne route is less certain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_disease Edited by user 07 May 2020 14:50:39(UTC)
| Reason: missing words
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Another reminder as to why you shouldn't store your toothbrush in the open in a combined toilet and bathroom situation...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris, It appears with the current knowledge and literature Covid-19 is not a Blood Bourne Pathogen. An internet search on understanding Blood Bourne Diseases will help you with your question. Hope this helps.
|
1 user thanked toe for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Very roughly (and remember I am not a biologist) there are two types of viruses, enveloped and non-enveloped. Non- enveloped viruses can survive pretty much anything the body throws at them, stomach acid, extreme low PH etc. these are your stomach bugs and are also the ones that alcohol gels don't tend to work on. Enveloped viruses (such as the corona virus) rely on they fatty shell to protect them. These are killed as soon as that envelope is compromised. As such these types of virus do not tend to be spread in any other ways that involve entering the actual body, such as blood, fecal matter and vomit. This means that it is unlikely (though not impossible) that the virus will not be spread via cuts etc. However there has been a few very limited studies that have suggested that we canot be confident in the transmission process yet. I doubt that is much help, but who said sciencing was easy?
|
2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, as a number of people have noted it is not fully known and so can’t be 100% certain, but that is an answer in itself and allows you to play on the safe side. I’m not intending to change anything on our PPE policy ( I feel to a large extent if you have to resort to PPE you have failed, though it does have its place, but costly over a long period). I do work in an industry where small cuts scrapes etc happen (occupational hazard) and most of the workers will only bother with a plaster if they can’t stop bleeding. The do wear gloves but only thin disposable with little to no mechanical resistance (so do break). They need a high level of dexterity so this can’t change. I think I’m simply going to advise ensuring all cuts are protected with a plaster which they have free access to (to be honest we throw away a lot which are out of date anyway, so increased use will have little effect). Obviously along with that is extra hand washing. I think that approach as I just can’t be fully sure that this route is or is not a viable one, is a sensible enough precaution. Thanks for everyone’s impute, I bet I was not the only one who have considered this. However, most web site just talk on the subject of airborne, because that is what they want to discuss etc but neither confirm or deny other possibilities. If it was easy everyone would be doing it and take the fun away from us! ( it is fun isn’t it ? I wonder from time to time). Chris
|
2 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.