7 ms·

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487110-tests-indicate-coronavirus-can-survive-in-the-air https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487110-tests-indicate-...

by srcmap 7y ago

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487110-tests-indicate-coronavirus-can-survive-in-the-air https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/487110-tests-indicate-... A study from scientists at Princeton University, University of California and the National Institutes of Health indicated that the COVID-19 virus could remain viable in the air "up to 3 hours post aerosolization," while remaining alive on plastic and other surfaces for up to three days.

bamboozled 7y ago
No it says: > A study awaiting peer review from scientists at Princeton University... Also these things are probably a theoretically absolute best case scenario type thing. Not a practically viable mode of transmission.
- mattkrause 7y ago
  Here's the actual article: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v... I would not read a lot into the "awaiting peer review" bit. It normally takes at least a few months for an article to be reviewed, revised (if necessary) and re-reviewed. Things are undoubtedly fast-tracked for COVID-related stuff, but you can only do so much to speed it along. Per their Table 1, the median halflife of an aerosol is about 3 hours, with a 95% credible interval of 1.81 of 5.45 hours, so it's not a a best (worst?) case number at all. The plastic data in Figure 2 shows that it does decrease a lot by 48 hours (~1000x), but it's still above the limit of detection; they estimate the half-life to be 14.8 hrs. The 3 day claim is true, but is more of a best/worst case scenario
  - bamboozled 7y ago
    Yeah, who needs a peer review on a science paper eh?
    - mattkrause 7y ago
      Eh, preprints have become incredibly common over the last few years and, in my experience, most scientists seem to take them almost or as seriously as the "final" peer-reviewed journal article. Don't forget that the traditional pre-publication peer review is more of a sanity check than a sacrament. All that happens is that ~3 people spend ~5-10 hours each reading the paper, thinking about it, and writing up their comments. This is often enough to flag major issues, especially in the interpretation of the data, but it's certainly possible for subtle errors to slip through.
      - bamboozled 7y ago
        Triggered
        mattkrause 7y ago
        ?

by srcmap 7y ago

bamboozled 7y ago

No it says: > A study awaiting peer review from scientists at Princeton University... Also these things are probably a theoretically absolute best case scenario type thing. Not a practically viable mode of transmission.

mattkrause 7y ago
Here's the actual article: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.09.20033217v... I would not read a lot into the "awaiting peer review" bit. It normally takes at least a few months for an article to be reviewed, revised (if necessary) and re-reviewed. Things are undoubtedly fast-tracked for COVID-related stuff, but you can only do so much to speed it along. Per their Table 1, the median halflife of an aerosol is about 3 hours, with a 95% credible interval of 1.81 of 5.45 hours, so it's not a a best (worst?) case number at all. The plastic data in Figure 2 shows that it does decrease a lot by 48 hours (~1000x), but it's still above the limit of detection; they estimate the half-life to be 14.8 hrs. The 3 day claim is true, but is more of a best/worst case scenario
- bamboozled 7y ago
  Yeah, who needs a peer review on a science paper eh?
  - mattkrause 7y ago
    Eh, preprints have become incredibly common over the last few years and, in my experience, most scientists seem to take them almost or as seriously as the "final" peer-reviewed journal article. Don't forget that the traditional pre-publication peer review is more of a sanity check than a sacrament. All that happens is that ~3 people spend ~5-10 hours each reading the paper, thinking about it, and writing up their comments. This is often enough to flag major issues, especially in the interpretation of the data, but it's certainly possible for subtle errors to slip through.
    - bamboozled 7y ago
      Triggered
      - mattkrause 7y ago
        ?