Which does not actually address whether there is airborne transmission of the virus but rather refers to laboratory generated aerosolized particles and viability on various surfaces.
If you know otherwise please share as this is in direct contradiction to what various health organizations have been telling HCWs and forms the basis of our hospital’s standard of care which like all other in North America is that airborne precautions are NOT needed except during aerosolized particle generating procedures.
“Standard of care” is risk managed by a vast bureaucracy of counter-balanced interests. It is not designed to incorporate rapid learning of emerging unknowns.
During the exponential introduction of a new disease, the standard of care lags, badly.
Repeating “that goes against the basis” or “not needed” doesn’t make sense until the competing interests have settled on a new standard incorporating understanding of the new unknown.
Better to follow the emerging research, tailor care, document, and contribute findings back, to optimize the learning curve.
I don’t follow your logic. When COVID-2019 first became a thing the “standard of care” was to use airborne precautions and respirators, it did not “lag badly” as you so claim.
Two months of research later there has been no evidence that this virus can be transmitted by airborne particles (read: not droplets) and the standard of care was updated a couple of days ago to reflect that, hence why we now do not require negative pressure isolation rooms and respirators.
Here's yesterday's updated standard of care language in regional guidance. Recall that a standard of care also protects providers and facilities from liability. By relaxing it, both are less liable for things that may still be risks.
Looks like the language makes it clear the goal here is to preserve the supply of masks:
The safety of healthcare workers is a top priority for the Health Department. As we gain more understanding of COVID-19, our guidance will evolve. The use of standard, contact, and droplet precautions with eye protection is appropriate when caring for patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. Personal protective equipment (PPE) should include: facemask (procedure or surgical mask) AND gown AND gloves AND eye protection (goggles or face shield).
The Health Department recommends healthcare workers do not need to use a fit tested N95 respirator or Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) for routine (non-aerosol generating) care of a COVID-19 patient. Patients can be evaluated in a private examination room with the door closed.
Supplies of PPE must be reserved for high risk procedures due to potential supply chain constraints.
Ample studies indicate the safety of droplet precautions which may also help prevent the complete exhaustion of fit tested N95 respirators and PAPRs; higher level PPE will continue to be needed to protect HCWs during critical and medically necessary aerosol generating procedures (e.g., intubation, suctioning) throughout the course of this outbreak.
Placing the patient in an AIIR and the use of a fit tested N95 respirator or PAPR is still recommended for aerosol-generating procedures (e.g., intubation, suctioning, nebulizer therapy) and when caring for patients with severe illness requiring intensive care.
Previously, you wrote, "various health organizations have been telling HCWs and forms the basis of our hospital’s standard of care which like all other in North America is that airborne precautions are NOT needed".
Now you write, "'standard of care' was ... two months of research later ... the standard of care was updated a couple of days ago to reflect that".
Yet you comment, "I don’t see where the lag is."
The two months' lag was enough it's not at all obvious which standard of care you were referring to when you're saying no lag, the lagged standard or the just updated standard.
Anyone who “knows” something is currently wrong, but there is evidence of possible airborne transmission