Can You Catch COVID-19 from Food?

Rachael Rettner wrote . . . . . . . . .

The thought may have crossed your mind as you navigate grocery store aisles or order takeout in the midst of a pandemic: Can you catch the new coronavirus from food?

Experts say there’s currently no evidence of the new coronavirus disease, COVID-19, being transmitted through food.

“We don’t really have any evidence that food or food packaging is a source for getting sick” from COVID-19, said Benjamin Chapman, a professor and food safety specialist at North Carolina State University.

Chapman stressed that there’s a lot we don’t know about COVID-19 and the virus that causes it, SARS-CoV-2. Our understanding about the spread of the disease, and the risk food poses, could change as more information becomes available.

But as far as we know, the disease appears to be spread mainly from person-to-person through virus particles that are spread when someone coughs or sneezes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While COVID-19 can theoretically be transmitted by touching a contaminated surface and then touching your nose, mouth or eyes, that’s not thought to be its primary mode of transmission, according to the CDC.

Why food is low risk

There are also several factors that could make transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through food less likely, even if the virus is present on food or a food worker catches it.

First, the food safety measures that are already in place to prevent foodborne illness — such as frequent hand-washing, cleaning of surfaces and utensils, and cooking food to the right temperature — would also reduce the transmission of any virus particles through food.

“One of the benefits we have in the food world is we’re already thinking of those things a lot — we’re constantly trying to stay away from transmission of foodborne pathogens in normal, regular times,” Chapman told Live Science.

Another factor is the biology of the virus. It cannot survive for weeks at a time on surfaces — a characteristic of other foodborne viruses such as norovirus, according to the Centers for Science in the Public Interest. (Preliminary studies have found the new coronavirus may last a few hours to a few days on certain surfaces.) And unlike bacteria, viruses cannot grow inside food, so the amount of virus in the food would be expected to dwindle with time, rather than grow.

Also, in theory, this type of virus should not survive well in the stomach, which is very acidic. “That’s good news around food,” Chapman said.

Still, the extent to which people can become infected by touching their mouths, or eating contaminated food, is unclear.

“It’s not that it’s not possible” for people to become infected with COVID-19 through food, Chapman said.”There’s always this possibility. But I want to make the best risk management decision based on the best science and evidence, and we just don’t have any evidence in that area” right now, Chapman said.

Tips for groceries and takeout

Although the risk of catching COVID-19 from food is likely low, there are some steps you can take to further reduce your risk. Here are some tips. (Chapman and his colleagues have also put together some COVID-19 resources regarding food safety for consumers and the food service industry.)

Store-bought food:

• It’s always a good idea — even when there’s no pandemic — to rinse fresh fruit and vegetables with water to remove dirt, debris and pesticides, and reduce levels of foodborne germs.
• There’s no need to wash food with soap. “Soap is for hands, not for food,” Chapman said.
• If you are concerned about food packaging, you can wash your hands after handling the packaging.
• If you are concerned about your food, you can cook it at 149 degrees Fahrenheit (65 degrees Celsius) for 3 minutes, which will significantly reduce levels of any virus particles, Chapman said.

Takeout:

Food that comes from restaurants is “really, really low risk” because food industry workers already have a heightened awareness about food safety. To further reduce the risk, Chapman encourages people to wash their hands after handling food packaging or takeout bags.

It’s also important for employers in the food industry to have strong employee health policies. Food workers should stay home if they start to feel symptoms, even if they haven’t been diagnosed with COVID-19, he said.

Source: Live Science

Salmon Steak and Shrimp with Asparagus

Ingredients

3 lb white asparagus
salt
4 salmon steaks (about 5 to 6 oz each)
freshly ground pepper
2 tablespoons flour
3 tablespoons butter
7 oz shrimp
1 cup hollandaise sauce

Method

1. Peel the asparagus and remove the woody ends. Cook the asparagus in boiling salted water for 20-30 minutes until done.
2. Season the salmon with salt and pepper, coat in flour and fry on each side for 3-4 minutes in butter.
3. Add the shrimps and cook until done.
4. Heat the hollandaise sauce.
5. Remove the asparagus from the water, drain and arrange on the plates with the salmon and shrimp. Pour the sauce on top before serving.

Makes 4 servings.

Source: Cooking with Asparagus

New Set Meal at Yayoiken (やよい軒) Chain Restaurant in Japan

Grilled Fish and Tofu with Meat Set Meal

The price of the set meal is 860 yen (tax included).

Singapore Modelling Study Estimates Impact of Physical Distancing on Reducing Spread of COVID-19

A new modelling study conducted in a simulated Singapore setting has estimated that a combined approach of physical distancing interventions, comprising quarantine (for infected individuals and their families), school closure, and workplace distancing, is most effective at reducing the number of SARS-CoV-2 cases compared with other intervention scenarios included in the study.

While less effective than the combined approach, quarantine plus workplace measures presented the next best option for reducing SARS-CoV-2 cases, followed by quarantine plus school closure, and then quarantine only. All intervention scenarios were more effective at reducing cases than no intervention.

The study, published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, is the first of its kind to investigate using these options for early intervention in Singapore using simulation. Despite heightened surveillance and isolation of individuals suspected to have COVID-19 and confirmed cases, the risk is ongoing, with the number of cases continuing to increase in Singapore. Schools have not been closed, and workplace distancing is recommended, but it is not national policy [correct as of 23.03.2020].

The study found that the combined approach could prevent a national outbreak at relatively low levels of infectivity (basic reproductivity value (R0) = 1.5), but at higher infectivity scenarios (R0 = 2.0 (considered moderate and likely) and R0 = 2.5 (considered high)), outbreak prevention becomes considerably more challenging because although effective at reducing infections, transmission events still occur.

Dr Alex R Cook, National University of Singapore, said: “Should local containment measures, such as preventing disease spread through contact tracing efforts and, more recently, not permitting short-term visitors, be unsuccessful, the results of this study provide policy makers in Singapore and other countries with evidence to begin the implementation of enhanced outbreak control measures that could mitigate or reduce local transmission rates if deployed effectively and in a timely manner.”

To assess the potential impact of interventions on outbreak size, should local containment fail, authors developed an individual-based influenza epidemic simulation model, which accounted for demography, individual movement, and social contact rates in workplaces, schools, and homes, to estimate the likelihood of human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Model parameters included how infectious an individual is over time, the proportion of the population assumed to be asymptomatic (7.5%), the cumulative distribution function for the mean incubation period (with the virus that causes SARS and the virus that causes COVID-19having the same mean incubation period of 5.3 days), and the duration of hospital stay after symptom onset (3.5 days).

Using this model, authors estimated the cumulative number of SARS-CoV-2 infections at 80 days, after detection of 100 cases of community transmission. Three values for the basic reproduction number (R0) were chosen for the infectiousness parameter, including relatively low (R0=1.5), moderate and likely (R0=2.0), and high transmissibility (R0=2.5). The basic reproduction numbers were selected based on analyses of data from people with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China.

In addition to a baseline scenario, which included no interventions, four intervention scenarios were proposed for implementation after failure of local containment: 1) isolation of infected individuals and quarantine of their family members (quarantine); 2) quarantine plus immediate school closure for 2 weeks; 3) quarantine plus immediate workplace distancing, in which 50% of the workforce is encouraged to work from home for 2 weeks; 4) a combination of quarantine, immediate school closure, and workplace distancing. These interventions follow some policy options currently being undertaken (quarantine and some workforce distancing) by the Singaporean Ministry of Health, as standard interventions for respiratory virus control.

For the baseline scenario, when R0 was 1.5, the median cumulative number of infections at day 80 was 279,000, corresponding to 7.4% of the resident population of Singapore. The median number of infections increased with higher infectivity: 727,000 cases when R0 was 2.0, corresponding to 19.3% of the Singaporean population, and 1,207,000 cases when R0 was 2.5, corresponding to 32% of the Singaporean population.

Compared with the baseline scenario, the combined intervention was the most effective, reducing the estimated median number of infections by 99.3% when R0 was 1.5 (resulting in an estimated 1,800 cases). However, at higher infectivity scenarios, outbreak prevention becomes considerably more challenging. For the combined approach scenario, a median of 50,000 cases were estimated at R0 of 2.0 (a reduction of 93.0% compared to baseline) and 258,000 cases at R0 of 2.5 (a reduction of 78.2% compared to baseline).

Authors also explored the potential impact if the proportion of asymptomatic cases in the population was greater than 7.5% (the proportion of people who are able to transmit despite having no or mild symptoms). Even at a low infectivity (when the R0 was 1.5 or lower), a high asymptomatic proportion presents challenges. Assuming increasing asymptomatic proportions up to 50·0%, up to 277,000 infections were estimated to occur at day 80 with the combined intervention, relative to 1,800 for the baseline at R0 = 1.5.

Dr Alex R Cook added: “If the preventive effect of these interventions reduces considerably due to higher asymptomatic proportions, more pressure will be placed on the quarantining and treatment of infected individuals, which could become unfeasible when the number of infected individuals exceeds the capacity of health-care facilities. At higher asymptomatic rates, public education and case management become increasingly important, with a need to develop vaccines and existing drug therapies.”

The authors note several limitations in their study, including dated census population data, impact of migrant movement, the impact of seeding of imported cases (transmissions originating from outside of Singapore) the dynamics of contact patterns between individuals, and other unforeseen factors. Of note, epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 remain uncertain in terms of the transmission and infectivity profile of the virus; therefore, estimates of the time between symptom onset and admission to hospital, how infectious an individual is over time, and the asymptomatic rate were based on SARS-CoV.

Writing in a linked Comment, Joseph A Lewnard, University of California, Berkeley, USA, and Nathan C Lo, University of California, San Francisco, USA, say: “Although the scientific basis for these interventions might be robust, ethical considerations are multifaceted. Importantly, political leaders must enact quarantine and social-distancing policies that do not bias against any population group. The legacies of social and economic injustices perpetrated in the name of public health have lasting repercussions. Interventions might pose risks of reduced income and even job loss, disproportionately affecting the most disadvantaged populations: policies to lessen such risks are urgently needed. Special attention should be given to protections for vulnerable populations, such as homeless, incarcerated, older, or disabled individuals, and undocumented migrants. Similarly, exceptions might be necessary for certain groups, including people who are reliant on ongoing medical treatment.”

Source: Science Daily

Brain or Muscles, What do We Lose First?

Someone dies somewhere in the world every 10 seconds owing to physical inactivity – 3.2 million people a year according to the World Health Organisation (WHO). From the age of 50, there is a gradual decline not just in physical activity but also in cognitive abilities since the two are correlated. But which of them influences the other? Does physical activity impact on the brain or is it the other way around? To answer this question, researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, and the NCCR Lives Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research used a database of over 100,000 people aged 50-90 whose physical and cognitive abilities were measured every two years for 12 years. The findings, which are published in the journal Health Psychology, show that – contrary to what was previously thought – cognitive abilities ward off inactivity much more than physical activity prevents the decline in cognitive abilities. All of which means we need to prioritise exercising our brains.

The literature in this area has been looking at the impact of physical activity on cognitive skills for a number of years. “Correlations have been established between these two factors, particularly in terms of memory, but also regarding the growth and survival of new neurons,” begins Boris Cheval, a researcher at UNIGE’s Swiss Centre for Affective Sciences (CISA). “But we have never yet formally tested which comes first: does physical activity prevent a decline in cognitive skills or vice versa? That’s what we wanted to verify.”

What came first: the chicken or the egg?

Earlier studies based on the correlation between physical activity and cognitive skills postulated that the former prevent the decline of the latter. “But what if this research only told half the story? That’s what recent studies suggest, since they demonstrate that our brain is involved when it comes to engaging in physical activity,” continues the Geneva-based researcher.

The UNIGE researchers tested the two possible options formally using data from the SHARE survey (Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe), a European-wide socio-economic database covering over 25 countries. “The cognitive abilities and level of physical activity of 105,206 adults aged 50 to 90 were tested every two years over a 12-year period,” explains Matthieu Boisgontier, a researcher at the Lives Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR Lives). Cognitive abilities were measured using a verbal fluency test (naming as many animals as possible in 60 seconds) and a memory test (memorising 10 words and reciting them afterwards). Physical activity was measured on a scale of 1 (“Never”) to 4 (“More than once a week”).

The Geneva researchers employed this data in three separate statistical models. In the first, they looked at whether physical activity predicted the change in cognitive skills over time; in the second, whether cognitive skills predicted the change in physical activity; and in the third, they tested the two possibilities bidirectionally. “Thanks to a statistical index, we found that the second model adjusted the most precisely to the data of the participants,” says Cheval. The study demonstrates, therefore, that cognitive capacities mainly influence physical activity and not vice versa, as the literature to date had postulated. “Obviously, it’s a virtuous cycle, since physical activity also influences our cognitive capacities. But, in light of these new findings, it does so to a lesser extent,” points out Boisgontier.

Slowing down an inevitable decline

From the age of 50, the decline in physical and cognitive abilities is inevitable. However, these results indicate that, contrary to what was once thought, if we act first on our cognitive skills, we can slow the decline of this virtuous circle. “This study backs up our theory that the brain has to make a real effort to get out of a sedentary lifestyle and that by working on cognitive capacities, physical activity will follow”, says Cheval by way of conclusion.

Source: UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA