VA-SenaSeptember 8, 2020


Junior Dentist Jobs in Bangalore – Advanced Dental Care Centre


Location – Bangalore(Yelahanka )
Quantification – BDS
Salary – 8000 Monthly

Advanced Dental Care Centre – Job Details

  • Urgently require BDS Graduates who have completed an internship.
  • Candidate must have good knowledge of subjects, must be hardworking and enthusiastic.

Job Summary

Job Type : Part Time
Job Role : Doctor / Physician
Job Category : Health Care
Hiring Process : Face to Face Interview, Telephonic Interview
Who can apply : Freshers

About Advanced Dental Care Centre

VA-SenaJuly 13, 2020




An analysis of an Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth has revealed that the COVID-19 infection can spread within 5 minutes to 50 minutes.

Professor Erin S. Bromage’s analysis of spreading of the Coronavirus infection stated that just more than 10 minutes of exposure to an infected person in a face to face situation can potentially get anyone infected and sharing a space with an infected person, for example, office, for a longer period will get such person or people potentially infected.

Sneezes and coughs of such infected people can infect a whole room of people. That is why, he says, it becomes mandatory for symptomatic people to stay home.

Erin gave an insight into how fast can a person get infected from the virus. In his analysis Erin talks about a formula – Successful Infection = Exposure to Virus x Time

It means that a successful infection depends upon the exposure to a number of virus particles for a particular period of time.

Based on various infectious diseases’ studies, Erin said that some experts estimate that as few as 1000 SARS-CoV2 infectious viral particles are needed to get someone infected.

He agreed that this still needs to be determined experimentally. However, he used the number to demonstrate how infection can occur.

“Infection could occur, through 1000 infectious viral particles you receive in one breath or from one eye-rub, or 100 viral particles inhaled with each breath over 10 breaths, or 10 viral particles with 100 breaths. Each of these situations can lead to an infection,” said Erin.

To understand this, Erin segregated different acts on the basis of virus particles released by different acts and which is the environment that is most conducive for this infection.

Coughing and sneezing:- As per Erin’s analysis, a single cough releases about 3,000 droplets. Most of these droplets drop on the ground quickly but many stay in the air. Droplets through cough travel at 50 miles per hour which means the airborne droplets can travel across the room in few seconds. He further analysed that a single sneeze releases about 30,000 droplets, most of them small and can travel easily across a room at 200 miles per hour.

Erin concludes that droplets in a single cough or sneeze of an infected person may contain as many as 20,00,00,000 virus particles which can all be dispersed in the environment around them.
So, during a face-to-face conversation with an infected person, if he sneezes or coughs it is quite possible to inhale 1000 virus particles easily and get infected.

Even in case of indirect cough or sneeze, the smallest of infectious droplets can fill the room and a person coming into the room within few minutes of such sneeze or cough can potentially receive enough virus through a few breaths to get infected.

Breathing: Erin observed that one breath can release 50-5000 droplets. Citing a few studies he said that influenza can release up to 33 infectious viral particles per minute. But for SARS-CoV2 Erin kept the number at 20.

He said that if every viral particle is inhaled (unlikely), it will take 50 minutes to get one infected.

Erin further observed that speaking increases the release of respiratory droplets about 10 fold which means 200 virus particles per minute. So, while talking face to face if every viral particle is inhaled, 5 minutes of such conversation can be a sufficient dose for infection.



VA-SenaJuly 2, 2020


Weak evidence for accuracy of Covid-19 antibody tests: Study

Serological tests to detect antibodies against Covid-19 could improve diagnosis and may be useful tools for monitoring levels of infection in a population, but it is important to formally evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence that they are accurate, the researchers said.

COVID-19-Study-01 A review of studies has found major weaknesses in the evidence base for diagnostic accuracy of Covid-19 antibody tests, particularly for point-of-care tests performed directly with a patient, outside a laboratory, and does not support their continued use.

Serological tests to detect antibodies against Covid-19 could improve diagnosis and may be useful tools for monitoring levels of infection in a population, but it is important to formally evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence that they are accurate, the researchers said.

The study, published ín The BMJ, set out to determine the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests for Covid-19.

The researchers, including those from Harvard Medical School in the US and University of British Columbia, Canada, searched medical databases and preprint servers from January 1 to April 30, for studies measuring sensitivity and specificity of a Covid-19 antibody test compared with a control test.

Sensitivity measures the percentage of people who are correctly identified as having a disease, while specificity measures the percentage of people who are correctly identified as not having a disease, they said.

Of 40 eligible studies, most (70 per cent) were from China and the rest were from the UK, US, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Japan and Germany.

The researchers noted that half of the studies were not peer reviewed and most were found to have a high or unclear risk of bias -- problems in study design that can influence results.

Only four studies included outpatients and only two evaluated tests at the point of care, they said.

When sensitivity results for each study were pooled together, they ranged from 66 per cent to 97.8 per cent depending on the type of test method used, meaning that between 2.2 per cent and 34 per cent of patients with Covid-19 would be missed, according to the researchers.

Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6 to 99.7 per cent, depending on the test method used, meaning that between 3.4 per cent and 0.3 per cent of patients would be wrongly identified as having Covid-19, they said.

The study found that pooled sensitivities were consistently lower for the lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test compared with other test methods.

The LFIA test is the potential point-of-care method that is being considered for 'immunity passports.'

The researchers explained that, if an LFIA test is applied to a population with a Covid-19 prevalence of 10 per cent, for every 1,000 people tested, 31 who never had Covid-19 will be incorrectly told they are immune, and 34 people who had the disease will be incorrectly told that they were never infected.

Pooled sensitivities were also lower with commercial test kits (65 per cent) compared with non-commercial kits (88.2 per cent) and in the first and second week after symptom onset compared with after the second week, they said.

The researchers point to some limitations, such as differences in study populations and the potential for missing studies.

However, study strengths include thorough search strategies and assessment of bias, they said.

"These observations indicate important weaknesses in the evidence on Covid-19 serological tests, particularly those being marketed as point-of-care tests," the researchers said.

"While the scientific community should be lauded for the pace at which novel serological tests have been developed, this review underscores the need for high quality clinical studies to evaluate these tools," they added.