4 ms·

Isn't transmission through objects completely irrelevant anyways? Also, microwaves don't heat very small dry objects such as viruses, so it is pointless to micr

by corty 6y ago

Isn't transmission through objects completely irrelevant anyways? Also, microwaves don't heat very small dry objects such as viruses, so it is pointless to microwave books.

sp332 6y ago
Lab studies have shown that the virus stays around in recognizable form for 1-3 days depending on temperature, humidity, and porosity. E.g. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 I have not heard of any cases of spread via objects and I think it would be a pretty small fraction, but maybe relatively more risky for a book than other objects. Lots of people lick their fingers for adhesion when flipping pages.
- lambdaba 6y ago
  Infection requires a certain level of exposure that you're unlikely (I would say, impossible) to reach merely by touching (unless it's a droplet and you shove it up your nose or something...).
  - sp332 6y ago
    Picking your nose, sure, but also rubbing your eyes or putting your finger on your lips in a thoughtful gesture. "Unlikely" is certainly true, but different people have different risk tolerances. And if it were really as simple as microwaving the book, this would be pretty reasonable!
    - lambdaba 6y ago
      Has there been any proof of infection via eyes? The virus needs to settle in the airways to reach the level of infection. I understand people's reaction, it's hard to sort all the messages from the media & health authorities, but it's still sad that so many have seemingly abandoned common sense.
      - sp332 6y ago
        Not peer-reviewed yet as far as I can tell. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1....
      - DanBC 6y ago
        This is suggestive that infection may occur via the eyes. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30313-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > On Jan 22, Guangfa Wang, a member of the national expert panel on pneumonia, reported that he was infected by 2019-nCoV during the inspection in Wuhan.2 > He wore an N95 mask but did not wear anything to protect his eyes. Several days before the onset of pneumonia, Wang complained of redness of the eyes. Unprotected exposure of the eyes to 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan Fever Clinic might have allowed the virus to infect the body.2
        ksaj 6y ago
        Redness of the eyes might be related to the blood clots that the virus is known to trigger.
      - belltaco 6y ago
        The eyes are connected to sinuses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasolacrimal_duct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasolacrimal_duct
      - rurban 6y ago
        Yes, finger to eye is proven and dangerous. Finger to lip not so, as the mouth does not have receptors. Finger to nose is ridicolous.
      - rurban 6y ago
        Yes, finger to eye is proven and dangerous. Finger to lip not so, as the mouth does not have receptors. Finger to nose is ridicolous. That's why you need to wash your hands. To protect your eyes.
  - mcnamaratw 6y ago
    Can you share your data?
- lbeltrame 6y ago
  The studies were done on cells (taking a sample from the surface after minutes or hours and trying to infect them - if they die, there is infectious virus there), but cells in culture don't have an immune system, nor they have physical barriers like nose and mouth. At this point animal studies are necessary to determine whether there is significant infection through items or not. Given the spread of the virus in the world, I think it is unlikely at this point, though (it would've been noticed if significant).
- lambdaba 6y ago
  I also want to point out that a respiratory virus's #1 (or perhaps only) means of transmission is via the airways, I don't think it's reasonable to expect even licking your fingers would result in an infection. I'm open to proof or hints of proof in that direction, I just don't see it ATM, based on what I've read on contagion events.
  - sp332 6y ago
    https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa149/5734265 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa149... "The presence of 2019-nCoV in patients’ saliva suggests the possibility of salivary gland infection.... Further studies are required"
mcnamaratw 6y ago
I don't think anyone really knows whether this kind of transmission is relevant or not.
lambdaba 6y ago
I agree with you, this talk of infection via objects is a remnant of the early paranoia around the virus.

by corty 6y ago

Isn't transmission through objects completely irrelevant anyways? Also, microwaves don't heat very small dry objects such as viruses, so it is pointless to microwave books.

sp332 6y ago

Lab studies have shown that the virus stays around in recognizable form for 1-3 days depending on temperature, humidity, and porosity. E.g. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 I have not heard of any cases of spread via objects and I think it would be a pretty small fraction, but maybe relatively more risky for a book than other objects. Lots of people lick their fingers for adhesion when flipping pages.

lambdaba 6y ago
Infection requires a certain level of exposure that you're unlikely (I would say, impossible) to reach merely by touching (unless it's a droplet and you shove it up your nose or something...).
- sp332 6y ago
  Picking your nose, sure, but also rubbing your eyes or putting your finger on your lips in a thoughtful gesture. "Unlikely" is certainly true, but different people have different risk tolerances. And if it were really as simple as microwaving the book, this would be pretty reasonable!
  - lambdaba 6y ago
    Has there been any proof of infection via eyes? The virus needs to settle in the airways to reach the level of infection. I understand people's reaction, it's hard to sort all the messages from the media & health authorities, but it's still sad that so many have seemingly abandoned common sense.
    - sp332 6y ago
      Not peer-reviewed yet as far as I can tell. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1....
    - DanBC 6y ago
      This is suggestive that infection may occur via the eyes. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30313-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > On Jan 22, Guangfa Wang, a member of the national expert panel on pneumonia, reported that he was infected by 2019-nCoV during the inspection in Wuhan.2 > He wore an N95 mask but did not wear anything to protect his eyes. Several days before the onset of pneumonia, Wang complained of redness of the eyes. Unprotected exposure of the eyes to 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan Fever Clinic might have allowed the virus to infect the body.2
      - ksaj 6y ago
        Redness of the eyes might be related to the blood clots that the virus is known to trigger.
    - belltaco 6y ago
      The eyes are connected to sinuses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasolacrimal_duct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasolacrimal_duct
    - rurban 6y ago
      Yes, finger to eye is proven and dangerous. Finger to lip not so, as the mouth does not have receptors. Finger to nose is ridicolous.
    - rurban 6y ago
      Yes, finger to eye is proven and dangerous. Finger to lip not so, as the mouth does not have receptors. Finger to nose is ridicolous. That's why you need to wash your hands. To protect your eyes.
- mcnamaratw 6y ago
  Can you share your data?
lbeltrame 6y ago
The studies were done on cells (taking a sample from the surface after minutes or hours and trying to infect them - if they die, there is infectious virus there), but cells in culture don't have an immune system, nor they have physical barriers like nose and mouth. At this point animal studies are necessary to determine whether there is significant infection through items or not. Given the spread of the virus in the world, I think it is unlikely at this point, though (it would've been noticed if significant).
lambdaba 6y ago
I also want to point out that a respiratory virus's #1 (or perhaps only) means of transmission is via the airways, I don't think it's reasonable to expect even licking your fingers would result in an infection. I'm open to proof or hints of proof in that direction, I just don't see it ATM, based on what I've read on contagion events.
- sp332 6y ago
  https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa149/5734265 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa149... "The presence of 2019-nCoV in patients’ saliva suggests the possibility of salivary gland infection.... Further studies are required"

mcnamaratw 6y ago

I don't think anyone really knows whether this kind of transmission is relevant or not.

lambdaba 6y ago

I agree with you, this talk of infection via objects is a remnant of the early paranoia around the virus.