
New coronavirus stable for hours on surfaces - vo2maxer
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/new-coronavirus-stable-hours-surfaces
======
wool_gather
This isn't new information except that it's being highlighted directly by the
NIH, instead of news orgs reporting on the preprint.

There also doesn't seem to be any attempt at reproduction so far. So, good
information to have, but we can't take the numbers as literal and absolute --
more like a lower bound.

~~~
creato
It also isn't necessarily sufficient for the virus surviving on surfaces to be
able to infect someone. If the virus needs to find its way into your lungs to
infect you, and it is part of some surface matter that doesn't aerosolize
easily, then the virus surviving on surfaces may not be able to actually
infect people.

~~~
prostheticvamp
People touch the surface, then their faces. Inhaled aerosols are not a
significant component of how this virus spreads. Touched surfaces with viral
films, and inhaled droplets, are.

~~~
creato
This is a _direct_ contradiction to what the CDC has been saying from the
beginning, and continues to say:

> The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person.

> \- Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6
> feet).

> \- Through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or
> sneezes.

> These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or
> possibly be inhaled into the lungs.

And:

> It may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or
> object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or
> possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus
> spreads.

[https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmissi...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prepare/transmission.html)

~~~
wool_gather
The fact that it's not "thought to be" the _main_ way...

Says nothing about whether it's still significant and something worth trying
to avoid.

Frankly, the fact that the CDC hasn't changed the guidance also means next to
nothing, because we're not collecting information about anything other than
the most obvious cases. I'm not saying that the guidelines shouldn't be taken
into account, nor ignored: just that they seem more likely to be of the "take
two aspirin and call me in the morning" variety, i.e., common rather than
informed and specific advice.

------
koolba
> The scientists found that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
> (SARS-CoV-2) was detectable in aerosols for up to three hours, up to four
> hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on
> plastic and stainless steel.

New rule is gonna be 48 hour quarantine for any packages.

~~~
et-al
Interesting that the virus remains potent on plastic and stainless steel
longer than cardboard. One would expect non-porous surfaces (e.g. steel) to be
more "clean".

~~~
mstolpm
One possible reason: Cardboard absorbs moist, which is neccesary for the virus
to stay active. Non-porous surfaces don't.

In addition, it was a lab experiment and from what I read, neither is it known
how big the droplets were they tested with nor does anybody know how many
virus particles are present in real droplets and how many might be transfered
by smiring. Drying of droplets might happen faster or slower in practice,
based on the environmental conditions.

And before quarantining your next package for days, just remember: Washing
your hands will get rid of the virus, it doesn't travel through the skin - you
would have to rub it in eyes, nose or mouth.

------
symplee
There's a referenced journal article on the Coronavirus Wikipedia page [0]
that says other coronaviruses can survive up to 9 days [1]. Can anyone
corroborate?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic#Transmission)

[1]
[https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-670...](https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/S0195-6701\(20\)30046-3/fulltext)

~~~
hajile
Government: cough into your elbow

Also Government: elbow bump instead of handshake

There seems to be a lot of contradicting stuff out there (and perhaps some
"feel like you're doing something" stuff too). It'll take a lot of time before
a consensus is actually reached.

~~~
nokcha
Contaminated hands are much more dangerous than contaminated elbows because
people frequently touch their face with their hands.

~~~
symplee
Great, now I have to also stop scratching my face with my elbows.

~~~
Grue3
Couldn't imagine my inability to lick my elbow would come in handy some day.

------
rv-de
In yesterday's update #15 on corona with Prof Christian Drosten [1] he is
asked about this study and voices scepticism regarding its reliability.

They publish a transcript for every episode. For this one it isn't available
yet. Otherwise I'd c/p the section.

1: [https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/15-Infizierte-werden-
off...](https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/15-Infizierte-werden-offenbar-
immun,audio654608.html)

~~~
rv-de
it was covered in episode #14:

[https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript128.pdf](https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript128.pdf)

(page 2 of 5)

------
bb2018
Does anyone have a good explanation for the statistics of these types of data.

For instance, I've heard keep six feet away. However, I assume six feet is the
distance where the chance of contracting is <0.1%, at five feet it is 1%, etc.
etc. Nothing is black and white.

Is the chance of contracting it from a surface meaningful? Or simply the
equivalent to "it is possible to catch it from someone 15 feet away even if
extremely slim"

~~~
Enginerrrd
Six feet comes from the settling distance curves for droplets of different
sizes. There may well be a hard cutoff where the probability is negligible
under normal circumstances.

~~~
aksss
Is that with a sneeze propellant or just normal suspension from carriers
breathing?

~~~
prostheticvamp
Sneeze, although it’s got a long tail (approx 30 ft, which is ridiculous).

------
davidw
Yikes. Say you buy a box of cereal from the store... is there any good way to
disinfect it, or just let it sit in the garage for a few days?

~~~
_bxg1
I made one last trip to the grocery store on Friday. Wiped the handle and
bottom of the cart, but I'm just crossing my fingers that the items I bought
were safe. Included lots of individual fruits, so not really feasible to
sterilize. I'm in Texas, so hopefully it wasn't prevalent enough yet. Not sure
what I'll do when I have to make another trip in a couple weeks if we're still
in quarantine.

~~~
KCUOJJQJ
>Not sure what I'll do when I have to make another trip in a couple weeks if
we're still in quarantine.

Maybe we can develop good ideas? What about these ideas:

* Vitamin/mineral pills

* fruit juice / pureed fruit/vegetables (for secondary plant substances)

* Visiting the grocery store when few customers are there

* Apply cream to your hands. I always wash my hands often. They can become dry and tiny wounds occur. If lemon juice hurts your hands then it's bad. Germs can get into the tiny wounds.

* Additionally, wear plastic gloves.

~~~
johntash
> * Visiting the grocery store when few customers are there

This is becoming hard with a lot of grocery stores reducing their hours now.
Our local store is only open 8-8 vs 24hours normally; I'd love to go around 10
or 11pm like we normally do.

------
3D22611099
Yikes this is horrifying.

I'm currently quarantining a family member in my guest room, whom I don't know
if they have a common cold or not. I'm wondering if just letting my ozone
machine (5,000mg/hr) run after they're done in shared rooms, such as the
bathroom etc. — unoccupied of course— would be enough to keep things
sanitized.

This is all incredibly stressing.

~~~
empath75
Realistically, everyone in the house with an infected person is going to catch
it. You’re breathing the same air if nothing else.

~~~
freeqaz
COVID-19 CDC guidelines recommend droplet precautions[0], which means that the
disease doesn't spread via the air. It spreads via droplets when you
cough/sneeze. It's still bad, but it does mean that sharing air isn't a hazard
by default.

If it was airborne, they would recommend different precautions[1].

[0]:
[https://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/preve...](https://www.who.int/csr/disease/coronavirus_infections/prevention_control/en/)

[1]: [http://www.wikidifference.com/difference-between-airborne-
an...](http://www.wikidifference.com/difference-between-airborne-and-droplet-
precautions/)

~~~
freeqaz
Update: It's a weird hybrid and airborne precautions are probably a good idea
anyway.

------
haydn3
Aren't most viruses stable for hours on surfaces?

------
wila
Ugh, this is the type of story that makes me want to run around with Purell or
something similar and clean everything like Sheldon does.

What if I touch my keyboard with dirty hands... it's not like I never type?

Time to clean the mouse and keyboard ;)

~~~
runawaybottle
What about Purell gloves? Would that be possible? We’d all sort of be cleaning
everything everywhere if it was possible (the disinfectant would have be to be
kind of dry or dry quickly, while still letting you grip).

~~~
symplee
I thought about this too. Imagine a glove that had thousands of micro pores
(like your skin) that would secrete a tiny droplet of Purell. But not enough
to be wet. Just enough to create a layer of evaporating sanitizer between the
glove and the surface. Possibly pressure activated so it's not secreting all
the time.

~~~
runawaybottle
And just to add to the brainstorm, just googled some ‘dry disinfectant spray’.
Now I’m not saying make a full on Iron Man glove, but a pressure activated
release of the spray could keep things dry. Plus we’d essentially be
distributing the job of cleaning everything to everyone.

Or maybe it’s finally time for self disinfecting door
knobs/faucets/lights/buttons.

------
themantra514
254NM UVC light lamps might be a good solution for packaging.

Make sure they are made by a reputable manufacturer, and that you get them
from a reputable distributor that tests for proper maximum UVC efficiency.

~~~
ericb
I'm curious about the intensity and length of time needed to break down
viruses with this light. Just wondering if there's some a possibility to use a
"light bomb" to sanitize a room--set a light on a pole in the middle of the
room. Leave the room and close the door, then trigger it for some length of
time. Just an idle musing I had.

~~~
joshgel
We literally do this for hospital rooms. There are uv devices that the
cleaners bring in and turn on for 30-45 min.

So good idea!

------
themark
"In the stability study the two viruses behaved similarly, which unfortunately
fails to explain why COVID-19 has become a much larger outbreak."

I am hoping that the similarity extends to SARS v1's sensitivity to
temperature.

------
robodale
I have a chlorine-based swimming pool. Should I live on my swimming pool?

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic from the amount of paranoid questions being asked
here).

~~~
serf
>(Yes, I'm being sarcastic from the amount of paranoid questions being asked
here).

to what purpose? to deride the cautious, or the panicked?

What's paranoid at this stage? There's a virus that spreads rapidly killing
people around the world.

Do you have some guidelines for us un-informed to easily sift through the
paranoia like you can?

(now THAT is sarcasm)

------
mrfusion
Someone should really rethink the gas pump handle in light of recent events.

Make it copper? Or how about a UV light shining on it when it’s hung up.

------
kingpiss
I hope I get it soon just to get it over with.

~~~
decebalus1
Anecdotal evidence shows that you can get reinfected.

~~~
dpbriggs
There's a couple ways that 'reinfection' could be reported right?

\- The test may have had a false negative

\- The viral load was low due to anti-virals, and subsequently re-surged once
off them

\- The person has a compromised immune system and cannot form proper immunity.

~~~
outworlder
SARS immunity was short-lived. Less than one year. Even in healthy
individuals.

~~~
dpbriggs
That's unfortunate. I did not know that

------
eyeball
would a few hours in the oven at 150 work to sanitize a package? (assuming the
contents can tolerate that, and i don't burn down my house with the cardboard
igniting)

------
dillonmckay
How much chlorine is required to kill it in water?

~~~
outworlder
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15847934](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15847934)

~~~
dillonmckay
That is SARS-CoV, not SARS-CoV-2.

Anything newer than 15 years ago?

------
laurex
"Up to 24 hours on cardboard" \- makes me wonder what the likelihood is of
mail and package delivery being shut down soon?

~~~
davidw
Not likely, as it's a lot easier to do some basics like take a temp of your
delivery people at the beginning/end of their shifts. And there's only one
person, so you could do some contact tracing if you were some kind of modern
country - unlike those unable to test hardly anyone.

So it seems a bit better than a free for all at the supermarket?

I just got the mail, with gloves, and left it in the garage. Same thing with
an Amazon package yesterday.

~~~
scottlegrand2
You're not the only one leaving stuff in the garage. but for some of the big-
ticket items or food items I have doused the box in Lysol spray and let it sit
for 10 minutes and then opened it.

but I read somewhere that the half-life of this thing in direct sunlight is
2.5 minutes so after an hour or so it's pretty much gone if that's true.

