wait a day, and the virus will be dead to an extent that you can’t get infected.
The paper that I’ve seen that tried to estimate this only reported TCID50/mL; how do you convert from that to infection risk?
[I think their methodology also might have been the equivalent of ‘licking the box’ instead of, say, touching the box with your finger and then touching your lips with your finger and then licking your lips, but for simplicity’s sake let’s assume I’m licking the box.]
First, please don’t lick the box. Second, I’m not a virologist, but the review he cited says that the survival time on paper, which will be similar to that of cardboard. That’s also assuming the droplets stay wet, which under non-laboratory testing conditions they will not.
I’m not a lab scientist, and haven’t worked in a lab since undergrad, but they say the method was end-point titration on Vero E6 cell—i.e. they put the sample on a bunch of cells that come from a standard line (of monkey kidney cells) for it to infect those cells, and tested those cells using titration.
That sounds like licking to me.
Also, +25 points to that paper for using Stan for the markov-chain monte carlo modeling, and only −10 for having appendixes in MS Word format.
Edit: and they do say the results for cardboard were unusually noisy, so it’s less reliable, but either way the virus was dead in a day.
The paper that I’ve seen that tried to estimate this only reported TCID50/mL; how do you convert from that to infection risk?
[I think their methodology also might have been the equivalent of ‘licking the box’ instead of, say, touching the box with your finger and then touching your lips with your finger and then licking your lips, but for simplicity’s sake let’s assume I’m licking the box.]
First, please don’t lick the box. Second, I’m not a virologist, but the review he cited says that the survival time on paper, which will be similar to that of cardboard. That’s also assuming the droplets stay wet, which under non-laboratory testing conditions they will not.
I can’t find the full paper anywhere, but the PubMed abstract of the paper it cited says:” SARS coronavirus in the testing condition could survive in serum, 1:20 diluted sputum and feces...” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14631830-stability-of-sars-coronavirus-in-human-specimens-and-environment-and-its-sensitivity-to-heating-and-uv-irradiation/ - That also sounds like they preserved the droplets from drying, as they did in similar studies that were cited—https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00430-004-0219-0 - though I can’t tell.
I’m working off this paper, which did test cardboard.
I’m not a lab scientist, and haven’t worked in a lab since undergrad, but they say the method was end-point titration on Vero E6 cell—i.e. they put the sample on a bunch of cells that come from a standard line (of monkey kidney cells) for it to infect those cells, and tested those cells using titration.
That sounds like licking to me.
Also, +25 points to that paper for using Stan for the markov-chain monte carlo modeling, and only −10 for having appendixes in MS Word format.
Edit: and they do say the results for cardboard were unusually noisy, so it’s less reliable, but either way the virus was dead in a day.