4 ms·

Is there a difference between "detectable" and "infectious"?

adventured 7y ago
Yeah, the gap between the two is measured in luck. More serious answer, I wouldn't tempt any of these figures by trying to cut them short. I've yet to see any research on minimum for infection related to SARS-CoV-2 (such that you can run that against the declines on surfaces like eg plastic, instead of waiting the full 72 hours). The dashed lines in that visual indicate the limits of detection for the surfaces. There is still some virus likely to be remaining beyond these detection limit times, however it wouldn't be believed to pose a risk of infection at those levels. For example some trace amount of the virus is likely to remain on plastic up to 80+ hours. And absolutely none is expected to still be on copper after 20 hours.
- CivBase 7y ago
  The "better safe than sorry" advice is fine if your goal is to avoid getting the virus at all costs. Many people feel that way right now, but complacency will set in eventually. As a relatively young and healthy individual, I'm already not worried about avoiding the virus for my own wellbeing. If I get it, I will probably show mild symptoms and make a full recovery in a few weeks without needing any medical care. I'm not afraid of getting it, but I do want to take reasonable precautions to avoid spreading it to those at much greater risk. Most of the public, myself included, are not going to build decontamination stations in their houses. Frankly, that's too much effort for too little personal benefit. If we understand how the virus spreads and use that knowledge to encourage more efficient precautions, then we'll ultimately do a lot more good. That's why it's important for us to paint an accurate picture of how effectively it spreads on inanimate objects. If the message is just "better safe than sorry", most people will eventually decide to take their chances.

Yeah, the gap between the two is measured in luck. More serious answer, I wouldn't tempt any of these figures by trying to cut them short. I've yet to see any research on minimum for infection related to SARS-CoV-2 (such that you can run that against the declines on surfaces like eg plastic, instead of waiting the full 72 hours). The dashed lines in that visual indicate the limits of detection for the surfaces. There is still some virus likely to be remaining beyond these detection limit times, however it wouldn't be believed to pose a risk of infection at those levels. For example some trace amount of the virus is likely to remain on plastic up to 80+ hours. And absolutely none is expected to still be on copper after 20 hours.

CivBase 7y ago
The "better safe than sorry" advice is fine if your goal is to avoid getting the virus at all costs. Many people feel that way right now, but complacency will set in eventually. As a relatively young and healthy individual, I'm already not worried about avoiding the virus for my own wellbeing. If I get it, I will probably show mild symptoms and make a full recovery in a few weeks without needing any medical care. I'm not afraid of getting it, but I do want to take reasonable precautions to avoid spreading it to those at much greater risk. Most of the public, myself included, are not going to build decontamination stations in their houses. Frankly, that's too much effort for too little personal benefit. If we understand how the virus spreads and use that knowledge to encourage more efficient precautions, then we'll ultimately do a lot more good. That's why it's important for us to paint an accurate picture of how effectively it spreads on inanimate objects. If the message is just "better safe than sorry", most people will eventually decide to take their chances.