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.
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.