Aerosol and surface stability of HCoV-19 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to SARS-CoV-1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1.full.pdf

Assuming the article indeed gets past peer review, what are the other factors of consideration in proving/disproving aerosol as a main mechanism of transfer? I assume one must consider the concentration required to cause infection (does this data exist yet?), as well as the efficiency of the virus shedding and aerosolizing.

I would assume this would lend itself to supporting the concept of social distancing even further. The main message seems to be that this virus is transmitted via fomite. Any medical background folks care to shed some light. Is this concerning, or am I missing something.

Forgive me, as I am on the research side of materials science, so biology isn't a strong suit haha.

24 hrs on cardboard. That's amazon packages.

Yes. The surface findings don't appear too comforting. The aerosol has me even more concerned but I don't understand the concentration levels required to infect.

Cliff notes for liberal arts majors?

txag11 said:

---

Yes. The surface findings don't appear too comforting. The aerosol has me even more concerned but I don't understand the concentration levels required to infect.

---

Actually not conserned about the aerosol findings at all. Thought they were quite comforting actually. Look at the Figure. SARS-CoV-1 is viable for the same amount of time, and with detection of almost 10-fold greater titer at 3 hrs than HCoV-19.

SARS was generally more lethal, but the outbreak was way more controlled than this. If more robust aerosol viability didn't help SARS, I think it's encouraging to think that this isn't what is most concerning about HCoV-19.

The stickiness on surfaces though...

I would argue that one of the factors not really considered in that statement is that people are presumed contagious well before the onset of symptoms, where SARS was the opposite IIRC. SARS was easier to contain since you could isolate the individual before they were extremely contagious.

Viable levels of virus remain on cardboard for up to 24 hours, 4 hours on copper, 48 hours on stainless and 72 hours on polypropylene (a common plastic used for consumer goods containers).

Significant levels of virus remain in the given aerosol test for 3 hours.

So what I didn't understand from reading the article is that, although it was still detectable on various surfaces for a significant amount of time, is the concentration or amount of whats left on the surface enough to infect another person?

Or is it basically understood that, as long as it is detectable in any amount it can infect someone else?

This I do not know. Was hoping those more tied into this field of research may be able to shed light.

jonj101 said:

---

So what I didn't understand from reading the article is that, although it was still detectable on various surfaces for a significant amount of time, is the concentration or amount of whats left on the surface enough to infect another person?

Or is it basically understood that, as long as it is detectable in any amount it can infect someone else?

---

It takes some significant amount of "loading dose" to cause an infection. I don't think we have a fantastic idea as to what this dose is for a typical individual. The longer it sits on a surface, the less ability to create an infection as viruses tend to die exponentially. Remember these are objects you touch with your hands. Don't lick the Amazon box and you'll be fine.

This is where the "don't touch your face and wash your hands" thing comes in.