- Messages
- 337
- Location
- Santa Cruz, CA
Yes, this is one of the studies from which much of the circulating claims and reporting originate.
Worth noting: it is a correspondence, not a peer-reviewed, approved article. It's basically "open source sharing," not a published, peer-reviewed NEJM article. I don't personally doubt its findings -- in our current situation the accountability that comes from publicly proclaiming findings and studies in NEJM, the premier US medical journal -- but that should be highlighted, since some other similarly shared articles have turned out to be flawed or fraudulent (there was one recently that spurred Trump's championing of hydroxychloroquine that turned out to be either fraudulent or flawed, published "open source" by a notorious wingnut).
Within that study: "Viruses were applied to copper, cardboard, stainless steel, and plastic maintained at 21 to 23°C."
21-23 Celsius is 69.8F-73.4F. Roughly "room temperature," and an inhospitable environment for the virus. If you have any awareness of how spread is...spreading...you know that the majority of spread is indoors, within something likely closer to an inhospitable environment than a hospitable one.
As temperatures are colder, the virus (and Cov-1 KNOWN data, which is much more extensive, show the same finding) lives much longer on the same surfaces.
If you follow the virus's action and devastation closely, you'll note that the majority of massive outbreaks are in two settings: indoor food packaging spaces (where there is refrigeration and temperature control, and where air is shared indoors), and agricultural situations where lots of poor people are living on top of each other, numerous bodies in small spaces, sharing air, surfaces, etc. etc. etc., in less temperature regulated, less cool settings.
The virus can still communicate in inhospitable conditions, just less well than in welcoming (colder than room temperature) situations.
