3 ms·

I think the important result of this study is that HCov-19 has essentially the same half life on every surface they tested as SARS-CoV-1 except cardboard. "In

I think the important result of this study is that HCov-19 has essentially the same half life on every surface they tested as SARS-CoV-1 except cardboard. "In general, there was no statistically discernable difference in half-life between the two viruses on any given surface except for cardboard: all other 95% credible intervals for the difference in half-lives overlapped 0". Importantly, "Our results indicate that the greater transmissibility observed for HCoV-19 is unlikely to be due to greater environmental viability of this virus compared to SARS-CoV-1." Edit: Remove line number from copy and pasted quote. Also fixed SARS virus name.

milemi 7y ago
you mean SARS-CoV-1 in the first para
- mikekchar 7y ago
  Yes, I do. Thanks. Edited.
Jedd 7y ago
Can someone please explain if there's some semi-obvious subtext to the caveat -- that greater comparative transmissibility is NOT due to comparative longevity on surfaces. Is there something else specifically, or is this just a general observation that greater transmissibility must be due to 'some other factor(s)'?
- mikekchar 7y ago
  The longevity is exactly the same, therefore it is likely that the greater transmissibility is due to a different factor. I think that's the only reasoning that's going on.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Latency and silent cases is probably enough.
altarius 7y ago
I just want to stress this again! I see so many people claiming that you need to quarantine your packages for X days to be safe - this does not seem to be what the study says! That doesn't seem to be true unless the number of particles they spread on the surfaces is representative of someone handling a package with contaminated hands. Viral particles seem to decay exponentially with a specific half-life (the environment just seems to break them down/inactivate and it's essentially a random process). So if you start with many more viral particles than this study, then more infectious viral particles will be on the surface after a set amount of time. Viruses do not seem to be like cells with a specific "life-time". This study essentially shows that this virus behaves a lot like SARS-CoV-1 but spreads more aggressively - it must be something other than longer viability on surfaces/aerosols.

milemi 7y ago

you mean SARS-CoV-1 in the first para

mikekchar 7y ago
Yes, I do. Thanks. Edited.

Jedd 7y ago

Can someone please explain if there's some semi-obvious subtext to the caveat -- that greater comparative transmissibility is NOT due to comparative longevity on surfaces. Is there something else specifically, or is this just a general observation that greater transmissibility must be due to 'some other factor(s)'?

mikekchar 7y ago
The longevity is exactly the same, therefore it is likely that the greater transmissibility is due to a different factor. I think that's the only reasoning that's going on.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Latency and silent cases is probably enough.

altarius 7y ago

I just want to stress this again! I see so many people claiming that you need to quarantine your packages for X days to be safe - this does not seem to be what the study says! That doesn't seem to be true unless the number of particles they spread on the surfaces is representative of someone handling a package with contaminated hands. Viral particles seem to decay exponentially with a specific half-life (the environment just seems to break them down/inactivate and it's essentially a random process). So if you start with many more viral particles than this study, then more infectious viral particles will be on the surface after a set amount of time. Viruses do not seem to be like cells with a specific "life-time". This study essentially shows that this virus behaves a lot like SARS-CoV-1 but spreads more aggressively - it must be something other than longer viability on surfaces/aerosols.