Mouthwash, Nasal Sprays and Covid-19

There has been a lot of speculation about whether gargling with mouthwash or using a simple nasal spray, can help to reduce your chances of being infected by Sars-CoV-2. A relatively large study in Cardiff looked at the impact of 7 common mouthwashes on the viability of the virus in in vitro laboratory settings (https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/does-mouthwash-kill-covid-19). They found that 2 Dentyl products (Dual Action and Fresh Protect), both containing cetylpyridinium chloride, and Listerine Advanced mouthwash, containing ethyl lauroyl arginate, "eradicated the virus completely after a 30 second treatment". Although this sounds good (and is possibly worth investigating further), there is currently no evidence that the effects would be replicated by real humans using the mouthwash (in vivo). Interestingly, given the early obsession in the pandemic with hand sanitiser (where the active ingredient is alcohol), mouthwashes containing ethanol alone, appeared to have no effect on the virus. It has been noted that mouthwash can kill a lot of things. That doesn't mean, however, it will protect you from a virus, largely transmitted by a combination of breathing in air-borne material and ingesting it from your fingers. Similar speculation about efficacy against Covid-19 has concerned Vick's First Defence nasal spray (marketed as a protection against infection by the Common cold virus). Again, the evidence is very limited for this or any other nasal sprays. I'm pretty cerain that cheap washing up liquid will also eradicate the virus completely after a 30 second treatment in laboratory cultures. I would not, however, want to gargle with it or squirt it up my nose! Having said all that, keeping yourself and your environments as sanitised as reasonably possible can't be a bad thing.

Turning Turtle?

There is an apparent good-news story, with confirmation that an 86kg female Swinhoe's softshell turtle (Rafetus swinhoei) has been found in Vietnam's Dong Mo lake (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/01/hopes-for-most-endangered-turtle-after-discovery-of-female-in-vietnam-lake). There may be another turtle (a male?) in the lake and possibly turtles in a nearby lake. The only male known to certainly exist, however, is a single animal in Suzhou zoo in China (shades of 'Lonesome George' the Galapagos Giant tortoise). These giant soft shell turtles were driven to the edge of extinction, by hunting for their eggs and meat (a turtle was a feast for a whole village on the Yangtze river) as well as destruction of their habitat. This turtle species was only given protection in 2013 but continued to decline. Although scientists are determined to give the turtles the chance to breed again, I don't think the prognosis for their survival is good. The last previously known female died in 2019, when she failed to recover from an anaesthetic as she was being artificially inseminated in Suzhou zoo. And, even if she (and/or others) does/do breed, there will be precious little genetic diversity in the species.

Stopping a Viral Stampede

It does seem a truism, that pandemics are only understood by looking backwards. An interesting article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/covid-turning-point-pandemic-unstoppable) has looked at the 'takes' of a number of viral epidemiologists in the US and UK (so this account has a focus on the experiences of those two countries) with respect to the Covid-19 pandemic. This essentially covers the period from the first recognition of the outbreak, in Wuhan, in December 2019, to the end of 2020. The scientists agree, there was early recognition in their specialist circles, that this was 'the big one' (although the WHO have since claimed, there might be bigger ones to follow). They believe, however, that policy circles were only geared to respond to an influenza pandemic, rather than a novel coronavirus. The scientists pose the question of whether there were missed 'stopping points', when action could have greatly limited the spread of the virus. Being scientists, they differ in their interpretations of the timelines of viral transmission but agree that a lack of concrete efforts in the UK and the US, resulted in chances being missed. Worobey et al. of Oxford University, provide a striking example of apparently flawed thinking. They point out that, early in the pandemic, Chinese citizens were banned from travel to the US. Simultaneouly, however, 40,000 US citizens, based in China, were repatriated (largely without checks), to locations throughout North America. At face value, this seems a very effective way of widely facilitating the spread of the virus throughout that country. The UK got early warning of the outbreak of the virus in Northern Italy. Their failure to consider what this might mean in terms of viral import to the UK, was probably another missed opportunity. These scientists agree that a failure to learn from our mistakes would be criminal. They also suggest that mutation tracking of viruses is now essential.

Does It Really Matter Where the B117 Variant of Covid-19 Originated?

It's been suggested by 2 million analyses of previous tests, that the highly contagious 'British' B117 variant of Covid-19 was in the US as early as October 2020 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/01/now-coronavirus-variant-us-since-october). The variant has a characteristic S gene drop out but you wouldn't know this unless you were looking at the sequence. Identification of a high incidence of B117 in Southern England, led the UK having their travellers banned (or subject to extra checks) by a wide range of countries. Now medical teams are looking for it, the variant does appear to have reached a wide range of countries. Just a couple of points. Countries that do sequencing on the virus are more likely to find mutations, before other countries that don't routinely do such screening. The rapid human transport systems that link the planet's countries, are likely to distribute a variant before it has been detected. So it's a bit futile to 'blame' a particular country for being 'responsible' for a variant. Detection, elsewhere, is likely to follow, when people start looking for it. We are, in one sense, all in this thing together. Each country will only become substantially safer, when all variants of Covid-19 are substantially eradicated throughout the world (and in all actual and potential hosts). We need the vaccines to reach all people (including in the poorest nations) as fast as possible.

Being Home Doesn't Mean Behaving Better?

The 'staycations' enforced by the Covid-19 pandemic on populations across the globe (and the claimed increase in appreciation of the natural world) have not led to all people treating their local environments any better. In the UK, people have been shocked by littering, fires, parking 'wars' and 'fly camping' (erecting tents in banned areas) at some of our National Parks (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/01/the-litter-was-a-shock-2020-covid-rush-on-uk-national-parks). For once, such boorish behaviour has not been limited to the Brits. Even in relatively sparsely-populated New Zealand, the replacement of foreign tourists by locals, had resulted in environmental damage (including) defaecating in pristine locations and disturbance of wild animal populations (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/see-your-own-back-yard-just-dont-poo-in-it-new-zealanders-told). One can only wonder what these people do in other countries they may visit in normal times!

Airports Carry an Additional Risk

A study, carried out in 2018 on 21 fit, young subjects, in a trailer outside Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, has revealed yet another pollution risk (additional to the release of 'greenhouse' gases) associated with air travel (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/01/pollutionwatch-fine-particles-affect-lungs-of-those-near-airports). The trailer had exercise bikes and equipment for measuring air-blown pollution. On some days, the wind direction carried atmospheric pollution from the surrounding roads and on other days directly from the airport. Jet engines produce ultra-fine particles, that are often undetected by recording devices. It has been shown (in Barcelona, Helsinki, London and Zurich, as well as Schiphol), that these tiny particles can be carried, by winds, tens of kilometres from airports. The vigourously exercising subjects showed, when exposed to the jet engine particles, marked reductions in their lung capacity and changes in their heart function. It is highly probable that, chronically, these particles would have even more profound effect. The negative health consequences on younger and older subjects (especially those with conditions like asthma) are also likely to be more intense. More study is needed but it seems there is another good reason for reducing, rather than increasing, air travel.

Motorists 1 Cyclists 0

The power of the motorist's lobby, even when more people can see the need to increase exercise and to reduce vehicular fumes, is clearly illustrated by a tale from London's up-market Kensington and Chelsea Council (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/01/removed-london-bike-lane-blocked-by-parked-cars-most-of-the-time-study-kensington-and-chelsea-council). A cycle lane was created in Kensington High Street, which proved popular being used by circa 4000 cyclists per day. Following complaints from just over 300 'residents' that motor traffic was being obstructed , the cycle lane was removed, just 7 weeks after it had been installed. Subsequent analysis of traffic camera images, has now been revealed, however, that car journey times in this area, now take longer. This is due to parked cars, in what had been the cycle lane, obstructing traffic flow. So, the 'resident's' complaint was rubbish. But even if they had had a case, I don't think that local councils should over-ride (especially on the basis of untested vested interests), part of a serious attempt to encourage cycling in UK cities. Cycling is dangerous enough in London already. I wouldn't like to do it.