[BostonCard]

I probably should have explained.  The index patient (a patient known to have been infected with SARS) was seated in seat 14E.  After the patient tested positive, the public health officials did a contact tracing and followed all the other passengers.  It then found out which seats those passengers were seated in.  18 other passengers and two crewmembers subsequently developed SARS.

Interestingly, neither of the passengers seated directly next to the index patient got sick, but two patients in the row ahead did.  Also, one patient five rows behind the index patient got sick, as did two patients seven rows ahead.  It is not possible to tell exactly what mechanism resulted in the other passengers catching SARS.  Here's some info from the discussion in the article:

The observation that the passengers who became infected were clustered in the few rows directly in front of or behind the ill passenger, rather than being randomly distributed throughout the aircraft, is consistent with the pattern described in other cases in which a respiratory pathogen was transmitted on board an aircraft13 and lends further plausibility to the theory that transmission occurred during the flight. The risk to passengers was greatest if they were seated in the same row as the index patient or within three rows in front of him. The greater concentration of persons who became infected in front of the index patient than behind him may point to the role of coughing in transmission, causing a combination of aerosol and small-droplet spread.

Large-droplet spread is often believed to occur within 36 in. of a patient,14 and this cutoff has been used to define exposure to SARS in other investigations.15 However, the distance covered by three economy-class rows on a Boeing 737-300 is 2.3 m (90 in.). On this aircraft, 90 percent of the persons who became ill were seated more than 36 in. away from the index patient, so airborne, small-particle, or other remote transmission may be more straightforward explanations for the observed distribution of cases. Although many respiratory pathogens are primarily transmitted through direct contact and large-droplet spread, a few — such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis, influenzavirus, and measles virus — may also be transmitted through airborne routes.16 Other potential modes of transmission include contact with contaminated fomites, contact resulting from the movement of the passengers closer together during the flight, and contact occurring in waiting areas or lines immediately before boarding or after disembarkation. Hand contact might have been expected to increase the risk among passengers who sat in aisle seats, but we did not find such a pattern.

BC

[BostonCard]

I probably should have explained.  The index patient (a patient known to have been infected with SARS) was seated in seat 14E.  After the patient tested positive, the public health officials did a contact tracing and followed all the other passengers.  It then found out which seats those passengers were seated in.  18 other passengers and two crewmembers subsequently developed SARS.

Interestingly, neither of the passengers seated directly next to the index patient got sick, but two patients in the row ahead did.  Also, one patient five rows behind the index patient got sick, as did two patients seven rows ahead.  It is not possible to tell exactly what mechanism resulted in the other passengers catching SARS.  Here's some info from the discussion in the article:

The observation that the passengers who became infected were clustered in the few rows directly in front of or behind the ill passenger, rather than being randomly distributed throughout the aircraft, is consistent with the pattern described in other cases in which a respiratory pathogen was transmitted on board an aircraft13 and lends further plausibility to the theory that transmission occurred during the flight. The risk to passengers was greatest if they were seated in the same row as the index patient or within three rows in front of him. The greater concentration of persons who became infected in front of the index patient than behind him may point to the role of coughing in transmission, causing a combination of aerosol and small-droplet spread.

Large-droplet spread is often believed to occur within 36 in. of a patient,14 and this cutoff has been used to define exposure to SARS in other investigations.15 However, the distance covered by three economy-class rows on a Boeing 737-300 is 2.3 m (90 in.). On this aircraft, 90 percent of the persons who became ill were seated more than 36 in. away from the index patient, so airborne, small-particle, or other remote transmission may be more straightforward explanations for the observed distribution of cases. Although many respiratory pathogens are primarily transmitted through direct contact and large-droplet spread, a few — such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis, influenzavirus, and measles virus — may also be transmitted through airborne routes.16 Other potential modes of transmission include contact with contaminated fomites, contact resulting from the movement of the passengers closer together during the flight, and contact occurring in waiting areas or lines immediately before boarding or after disembarkation. Hand contact might have been expected to increase the risk among passengers who sat in aisle seats, but we did not find such a pattern.

BC