6 ms·

Any claim without sufficient data and reproducible results that the virus is unable to transfer via a surface, to me, borders on criminal negligence, given real

Any claim without sufficient data and reproducible results that the virus is unable to transfer via a surface, to me, borders on criminal negligence, given real research shows this is inaccurate. As a counter to claim virus is “unable to live on surfaces”: Virus was found 17-days after cabins on a cruise ship were vacated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm Coronaviruses: How long can they survive on surfaces? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-long-can-they-survive-on-surfaces https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/coronaviruses-how-... First link is ambiguous as to if the samples taken were “toxic” enough to result in infection, but the second link makes it clear that virus survives on surfaces for days in quantities large enough to infect someone.

fxj 6y ago
Here is the link to actual publication (in german): https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwischenergebnis_covid19_case_study_gangelt_0.pdf https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwis...
- endorphone 6y ago
  It's a two page summary. Note that this, and the accompanying press conference (with professional PR team) are it. That is the entirety of the details they have released.
  - klingonopera 6y ago
    The final bits of text indicate that the full study is to be published as soon as it's available. All statements made in the paper are marked with "vorläufig", which translates to preliminary. Considering the gravity of the situation, I don't think it's bad to provide preliminary results, but that's probably highly debatable.
    - xenonite 6y ago
      I agreee, but I find it highly problematic and even dubious that it’s now taken as factual by the mass media in Germany.
      - klingonopera 6y ago
        Despite it opposing their previous stance on it? They're now mostly backpedalling, and discrediting the study. Or, at least, how it was presented - but can anyone blame them for that?
    - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
      I think it's absolutely crazy and irresponsible to do a press conference on a paper that you haven't even released a preprint of. I really hope that there aren't any issues with the actual publication, because if there are, they're going to cause a great amount of damage to scientific credibility, which so incredibly important right now.
minsight 6y ago
There's a big difference between virii and viral RNA being found after 17 days. One will kill you. The other is just viral wreckage.
- rriepe 6y ago
  This meme in the media is the real negligence. This is the biggest blurred distinction they've used to sensationalize headlines. It's like digging up a graveyard and using it as proof that humans can survive for 300 years underground.
  - andybak 6y ago
    I'm quite happy to be over cautious until there's better evidence. It's fairly simple to change my behaviour and with a relatively low cost compared to the risk related to uncertainty over ease of transmission.
    - JackFr 6y ago
      > It's fairly simple to change my behaviour As one of 9 million recently unemployed, I'd gently remind you that while the changes to our behaviour are simple, they have real costs.
      - kingkawn 6y ago
        You deserve govt support, not a careless lifting of the isolation measures
        zaroth 6y ago
        Do you believe the point of isolation is to stop the spread or slow the spread? If the point is to slow the spread but ultimately for everyone to be exposed, wouldn’t it make sense to do that as quickly as possible without overrunning hospitals? At this point new hospital admissions are significantly down from their peak. If the point is to slow the spread but acknowledging that it cannot be eliminated, we’ve in fact over-corrected.
new299 6y ago
> SARS-CoV-2 RNA was identified on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins Unless there’s more to this, it doesn’t seem very useful to me. It seems obvious to me that you’ll find some RNA. However it would likely be damaged/fragmented. I’m not sure about the second reference, it would be interesting to dig out the original study.
- Endlessly 6y ago
  Research is linked to in the media coverage: https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-670...
  - fxj 6y ago
    Conclusions Human coronaviruses can remain infectious on inanimate surfaces for up to 9 days. Surface disinfection with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite or 62–71% ethanol significantly reduces coronavirus infectivity on surfaces within 1 min exposure time. We expect a similar effect against the SARS-CoV-2.
- Endlessly 6y ago
  Additional Research: “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 — Research found that SARS-CoV-2 was detectable in quantities large enough to be infectious in aerosols for up to 3 hours, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.
alexanderhorl 6y ago
They just found RNA of the Virus not an active Virus, there is a huge difference. Same goes for Virus in stool, you can detect the RNA but it’s not active anymore. Source: Webasto Study
ceejayoz 6y ago
https://twitter.com/kenjilopezalt/status/1242285123652825089 https://twitter.com/kenjilopezalt/status/1242285123652825089 > Saying that live virus is there because viral RNA was found is like saying I must be holding a meatball sub because there's a marinara stain on my pants.
- jiofih 6y ago
  There is no such a thing as a “live” virus. They are just a bundle of RNA in a protein/fat shell. If the RNA was identified it means the shell was intact.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - MikeAmelung 6y ago
    This is not correct. https://www.virology.ws/2017/02/17/viral-rna-is-not-infectious-virus/ https://www.virology.ws/2017/02/17/viral-rna-is-not-infectio...
endorphone 6y ago
The CDC is currently saying that this virus has an R0 of 5.7. Couple that with the many cases of casual spread (e.g. people who have gotten it with people they have barely interacted with), and the contrarian claims by this German study seem farcical.
jey 6y ago
They found viral RNA. That doesn’t necessarily mean viable virus particles.
- mbrameld 6y ago
  It also doesn't necessarily mean only non-viable virus particles.
- 6510 6y ago
  may or may not be viable.... Like so many findings, on their own it means nothing.
  - seunosewa 6y ago
    Can’t they just test for viability by culturing the virus? If they can, why didn’t they?
Zenst 6y ago
Also they measure active live viruses, and has been shown that some viruses can go dormant and come back to life so measuring an area for a virus may not pick up dormant ones and lead to a result that is a false reassurance as the potential for those dormant virus to come back into life is still there. But so much we don't know about this new virus strain, hence big rush to learn all these details about this virus as with better understanding, better management and approaches come about. As for its survival rate on surfaces, we still don't know all the details, but does no harm to just treat all surfaces as infected outside your home and work with that - hence hand washing and not forgetting the details like tap, keys, phone, things you can't avoid touching up to the point you actually get to wash your hands. I'd hate to think how many have clean hands and then turn the tap off with the same hands that turned it on when potentially contaminated. That will be the small oversights that catch people out more. Hence until we get that data to know for sure science wise, presume the worst and hope for the best is always the only prudent approach.
- strbean 6y ago
  Dormancy refers to when a host is infected but the virus is not replicating. There is no "dormant vs. live" distinction for viruses outside of a host as they have no function / biological processes outside of a host. They are just molecular robo-syringes that inject RNA/DNA.
  - Zenst 6y ago
    Also refers to viruses dormant without any host, for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276 whilst an edge-case and it does show that enviromental factors and how a particular virus responds and reacts are still things we are learning about this one. Heck, may find out that frozen good with contaminated packaging can put the viruses into dormant mode and when you take them out of the freezer, and temperature and humidity level kick it into life. Details like that unlikely, yet still not been ruled out and much science still ahead upon this virus and caught many off guard and on the backfoot, but we love solving problems and the science is starting to get more detailed a bigger picture every day. But still, mindful of not eliminating aspects that have not been totally ruled out is a balance of risk/caution and fair judgement still plays a part.
angel_j 6y ago
Fool, you just posted two claims without sufficient data and reproducible results!
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't post personal attacks or call names, even when someone posts claims without sufficient data and reproducible results. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More generally: will you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN? You've done it a lot, and we ban accounts that do it, because it destroys the spirit of curious conversation, which is what the site is intended to be used for.
Endlessly 6y ago
Research: “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 — Research found that SARS-CoV-2 was detectable in quantities large enough to be infectious in aerosols for up to 3 hours, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.
- bunje 6y ago
  AFAIK it remains unknown how many viruses are required and where in the human body to get an infection. So 'quantities large enough to be infectious' is probably false.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    There are very well defined scientific protocols for what an infectious dose is, used in this research. You can put your “probably false” argument against the contents of the paper.
    - bunje 6y ago
      I was not referring to anything like that, but to the fact that a different amount of different viruses is required to cause an infection. E.g. in this paper it is estimated that influenza A (in aerosol form) requires around 2000-3000 viruses to infect: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2014/859090/#conclusions https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2014/859090/#conclusions. On the other hand Noro-viruses can infect a person in much smaller quantities (don't bother finding a reference but you'll find it quickly). All I'm saying that it's unlikely that we know such numbers at this point for SARS-CoV-2 so in the paper you linked they must have used some other definition for an 'infectous dose' than what you'd intuitively think. Edit: Now that I actually read the paper that OP posted, it seems that they're estimating the half-life of SARS-CoV-2. It really depends on the initial amount of viruses how long it takes to go below some fixed 'non-infectious limit'. So numbers such as '3 hours' quoted in the paper are pretty much meaningless in practical situations where the inital amount of viruses might be much different. It's not that they're trying to emulate a cough or something.

fxj 6y ago

Here is the link to actual publication (in german): https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwischenergebnis_covid19_case_study_gangelt_0.pdf https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/zwis...

endorphone 6y ago
It's a two page summary. Note that this, and the accompanying press conference (with professional PR team) are it. That is the entirety of the details they have released.
- klingonopera 6y ago
  The final bits of text indicate that the full study is to be published as soon as it's available. All statements made in the paper are marked with "vorläufig", which translates to preliminary. Considering the gravity of the situation, I don't think it's bad to provide preliminary results, but that's probably highly debatable.
  - xenonite 6y ago
    I agreee, but I find it highly problematic and even dubious that it’s now taken as factual by the mass media in Germany.
    - klingonopera 6y ago
      Despite it opposing their previous stance on it? They're now mostly backpedalling, and discrediting the study. Or, at least, how it was presented - but can anyone blame them for that?
  - ImprobableTruth 6y ago
    I think it's absolutely crazy and irresponsible to do a press conference on a paper that you haven't even released a preprint of. I really hope that there aren't any issues with the actual publication, because if there are, they're going to cause a great amount of damage to scientific credibility, which so incredibly important right now.

minsight 6y ago

There's a big difference between virii and viral RNA being found after 17 days. One will kill you. The other is just viral wreckage.

rriepe 6y ago
This meme in the media is the real negligence. This is the biggest blurred distinction they've used to sensationalize headlines. It's like digging up a graveyard and using it as proof that humans can survive for 300 years underground.
- andybak 6y ago
  I'm quite happy to be over cautious until there's better evidence. It's fairly simple to change my behaviour and with a relatively low cost compared to the risk related to uncertainty over ease of transmission.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    > It's fairly simple to change my behaviour As one of 9 million recently unemployed, I'd gently remind you that while the changes to our behaviour are simple, they have real costs.
    - kingkawn 6y ago
      You deserve govt support, not a careless lifting of the isolation measures
      - zaroth 6y ago
        Do you believe the point of isolation is to stop the spread or slow the spread? If the point is to slow the spread but ultimately for everyone to be exposed, wouldn’t it make sense to do that as quickly as possible without overrunning hospitals? At this point new hospital admissions are significantly down from their peak. If the point is to slow the spread but acknowledging that it cannot be eliminated, we’ve in fact over-corrected.

new299 6y ago

> SARS-CoV-2 RNA was identified on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins Unless there’s more to this, it doesn’t seem very useful to me. It seems obvious to me that you’ll find some RNA. However it would likely be damaged/fragmented. I’m not sure about the second reference, it would be interesting to dig out the original study.

Endlessly 6y ago
Research is linked to in the media coverage: https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701(20)30046-3/fulltext https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-670...
- fxj 6y ago
  Conclusions Human coronaviruses can remain infectious on inanimate surfaces for up to 9 days. Surface disinfection with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite or 62–71% ethanol significantly reduces coronavirus infectivity on surfaces within 1 min exposure time. We expect a similar effect against the SARS-CoV-2.
Endlessly 6y ago
Additional Research: “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 — Research found that SARS-CoV-2 was detectable in quantities large enough to be infectious in aerosols for up to 3 hours, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.

alexanderhorl 6y ago

They just found RNA of the Virus not an active Virus, there is a huge difference. Same goes for Virus in stool, you can detect the RNA but it’s not active anymore. Source: Webasto Study

ceejayoz 6y ago

https://twitter.com/kenjilopezalt/status/1242285123652825089 https://twitter.com/kenjilopezalt/status/1242285123652825089 > Saying that live virus is there because viral RNA was found is like saying I must be holding a meatball sub because there's a marinara stain on my pants.

jiofih 6y ago
There is no such a thing as a “live” virus. They are just a bundle of RNA in a protein/fat shell. If the RNA was identified it means the shell was intact.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- MikeAmelung 6y ago
  This is not correct. https://www.virology.ws/2017/02/17/viral-rna-is-not-infectious-virus/ https://www.virology.ws/2017/02/17/viral-rna-is-not-infectio...

endorphone 6y ago

The CDC is currently saying that this virus has an R0 of 5.7. Couple that with the many cases of casual spread (e.g. people who have gotten it with people they have barely interacted with), and the contrarian claims by this German study seem farcical.

jey 6y ago

They found viral RNA. That doesn’t necessarily mean viable virus particles.

mbrameld 6y ago
It also doesn't necessarily mean only non-viable virus particles.
6510 6y ago
may or may not be viable.... Like so many findings, on their own it means nothing.
- seunosewa 6y ago
  Can’t they just test for viability by culturing the virus? If they can, why didn’t they?

Zenst 6y ago

Also they measure active live viruses, and has been shown that some viruses can go dormant and come back to life so measuring an area for a virus may not pick up dormant ones and lead to a result that is a false reassurance as the potential for those dormant virus to come back into life is still there. But so much we don't know about this new virus strain, hence big rush to learn all these details about this virus as with better understanding, better management and approaches come about. As for its survival rate on surfaces, we still don't know all the details, but does no harm to just treat all surfaces as infected outside your home and work with that - hence hand washing and not forgetting the details like tap, keys, phone, things you can't avoid touching up to the point you actually get to wash your hands. I'd hate to think how many have clean hands and then turn the tap off with the same hands that turned it on when potentially contaminated. That will be the small oversights that catch people out more. Hence until we get that data to know for sure science wise, presume the worst and hope for the best is always the only prudent approach.

strbean 6y ago
Dormancy refers to when a host is infected but the virus is not replicating. There is no "dormant vs. live" distinction for viruses outside of a host as they have no function / biological processes outside of a host. They are just molecular robo-syringes that inject RNA/DNA.
- Zenst 6y ago
  Also refers to viruses dormant without any host, for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26387276 whilst an edge-case and it does show that enviromental factors and how a particular virus responds and reacts are still things we are learning about this one. Heck, may find out that frozen good with contaminated packaging can put the viruses into dormant mode and when you take them out of the freezer, and temperature and humidity level kick it into life. Details like that unlikely, yet still not been ruled out and much science still ahead upon this virus and caught many off guard and on the backfoot, but we love solving problems and the science is starting to get more detailed a bigger picture every day. But still, mindful of not eliminating aspects that have not been totally ruled out is a balance of risk/caution and fair judgement still plays a part.

angel_j 6y ago

Fool, you just posted two claims without sufficient data and reproducible results!

dang 6y ago
Please don't post personal attacks or call names, even when someone posts claims without sufficient data and reproducible results. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More generally: will you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait to HN? You've done it a lot, and we ban accounts that do it, because it destroys the spirit of curious conversation, which is what the site is intended to be used for.

Endlessly 6y ago

Research: “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1” https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 — Research found that SARS-CoV-2 was detectable in quantities large enough to be infectious in aerosols for up to 3 hours, up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 2-3 days on plastic and stainless steel.

bunje 6y ago
AFAIK it remains unknown how many viruses are required and where in the human body to get an infection. So 'quantities large enough to be infectious' is probably false.
- jiofih 6y ago
  There are very well defined scientific protocols for what an infectious dose is, used in this research. You can put your “probably false” argument against the contents of the paper.
  - bunje 6y ago
    I was not referring to anything like that, but to the fact that a different amount of different viruses is required to cause an infection. E.g. in this paper it is estimated that influenza A (in aerosol form) requires around 2000-3000 viruses to infect: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2014/859090/#conclusions https://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/2014/859090/#conclusions. On the other hand Noro-viruses can infect a person in much smaller quantities (don't bother finding a reference but you'll find it quickly). All I'm saying that it's unlikely that we know such numbers at this point for SARS-CoV-2 so in the paper you linked they must have used some other definition for an 'infectous dose' than what you'd intuitively think. Edit: Now that I actually read the paper that OP posted, it seems that they're estimating the half-life of SARS-CoV-2. It really depends on the initial amount of viruses how long it takes to go below some fixed 'non-infectious limit'. So numbers such as '3 hours' quoted in the paper are pretty much meaningless in practical situations where the inital amount of viruses might be much different. It's not that they're trying to emulate a cough or something.