The coronavirus 'does not spread easily' from touching surfaces or objects, CDC says

May 22, 2020
2
0
10
How is it possible after months of saying the same thing over and over "surface contact info is not yet conclusive and more studies need to be done"

reminds me of an old story,
This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have.

Is ANYBODY actually trying to find this out? Who?
Or are are we all just assuming somebody is and that it'll never actually be studied further?
 
May 15, 2020
5
2
35
How is it possible after months of saying the same thing over and over "surface contact info is not yet conclusive and more studies need to be done"

reminds me of an old story,
This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody. There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn’t do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have.

Is ANYBODY actually trying to find this out? Who?
Or are are we all just assuming somebody is and that it'll never actually be studied further?
It is much easier to trace from whom you caught an infection than determine the actual mechanism of the virus transmission. Think for a minute, about the last time you were ill from an infection. Do you know how you caught it? By speaking with friends and co-workers you encountered shortly before you became ill, you might be able to figure out (if they also were or became ill around the same time), who passed it on to you. But how? Did you shake hands? Did you speak to each other? Did the other person cough or sneeze? Maybe all three things occurred. Which was the way the virus was transmitted to you?

What has been determined is that the virus which causes Covid-19, can remain viable on different surfaces for up to several days. This means that viral samples taken from these surfaces can invade and infect cells in the lab. But that is a far cry from saying that if you touch these surfaces, you will be infected. The body has many defenses, which help shield you from infection, so, it may not be easy to pick up an infection by this route.

The only way to be sure that someone was infected in this manner, would be to shield them from direct contact from anyone who may be harboring the virus, and only expose them to viral contaminated surfaces. If they become infected, then it had to be by picking it up from surfaces. But that still wouldn't let you know how easy it is to contract it by this means - only that it is possible.

Case studies have shown that most cases of infection can be traced to actual close contact with other individuals. Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that you got infected from touching a surface they contaminated while the two of you were in close proximity, but the fact that you were actually present together before you were infected indicates that there was a more direct route of transmission.

So, although there are many people investigating these issues, finding hard evidence of not just the means of possible transmission, but the relative ease of transmission among the various possible routes, will take some time, and a lot of carefully designed studies. We have only known of the possibility of human infection with this novel coronavirus for about 6 months. Give the investigators time to get the hard numbers, and until then, act prudently with the discoveries which have already been made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdpage
Jan 17, 2020
5
2
35
I've always trusted the CDC... but it seems that trump got his lying hands on them and now I'm not sure we can trust them at all (Environmental Protection Agency... LOL).
Trump politicizes everything he touches and tends to fire anyone who doesn't agree with his own (or Fox Entertainments) "thoughts" on a subject. So can we trust them??

What do you think Live Science? What do the rest of the worlds scientist say? We need the truth from actually scientist... you know, the ones who have no other agenda or child king that they must keep happy or lose their job.
 
May 15, 2020
5
2
35
I've always trusted the CDC... but it seems that trump got his lying hands on them and now I'm not sure we can trust them at all (Environmental Protection Agency... LOL).
Trump politicizes everything he touches and tends to fire anyone who doesn't agree with his own (or Fox Entertainments) "thoughts" on a subject. So can we trust them??

What do you think Live Science? What do the rest of the worlds scientist say? We need the truth from actually scientist... you know, the ones who have no other agenda or child king that they must keep happy or lose their job.
Yes, finding truth in all the hype (from both sides) is quite difficult. And pulling your "facts" from just the side you find most agreement with, limits your reach, and puts you in the same trap of the many of the proponents and followers on "the other side". And since none of us can be experts in all subjects, we do need to figure out how to get information we can trust. So, what do you do?

One thing you can do is consider the source - does it appear to take a balanced approach, or is it all one-sided. In other words, what is the agenda. Another consideration - is the information coming straight from the source, or is it being reported, out of context (and possibly twisted), to fit the aims of the reporter? Then too, there is the point you mentioned in your question - what do OTHER expert sources have to say in this regard - is it the same, or something different?

I believe that using the above principles, you can begin to find ways to separate truth from spin, and also discover sources which don't necessarily have a "stake in the game." But even at this point, don't blindly accept something you see or hear, even from previously "neutral" sources. Sometimes even with the best intentions, and real efforts to provide balanced reporting, your previously "neutral" sources can get it wrong.

Yes, finding the truth can be quite difficult, but that work is part of our duty to be informed citizens. You are to be commended for taking part in this struggle.
 
Jan 17, 2020
5
2
35
Yes, finding truth in all the hype (from both sides) is quite difficult. And pulling your "facts" from just the side you find most agreement with, limits your reach, and puts you in the same trap of the many of the proponents and followers on "the other side". And since none of us can be experts in all subjects, we do need to figure out how to get information we can trust. So, what do you do?

One thing you can do is consider the source - does it appear to take a balanced approach, or is it all one-sided. In other words, what is the agenda. Another consideration - is the information coming straight from the source, or is it being reported, out of context (and possibly twisted), to fit the aims of the reporter? Then too, there is the point you mentioned in your question - what do OTHER expert sources have to say in this regard - is it the same, or something different?

I believe that using the above principles, you can begin to find ways to separate truth from spin, and also discover sources which don't necessarily have a "stake in the game." But even at this point, don't blindly accept something you see or hear, even from previously "neutral" sources. Sometimes even with the best intentions, and real efforts to provide balanced reporting, your previously "neutral" sources can get it wrong.

Yes, finding the truth can be quite difficult, but that work is part of our duty to be informed citizens. You are to be commended for taking part in this struggle.
Well Said Daniel!
Hoping LiveScience can tell us what the rest of the worlds scientist agree upon, since ours seems to be being compromised. I've always trusted the US scientist who've dedicated their lives to improving our knowledge... but that's becoming harder and harder as our government fires the ones who won't lie.

Funny... remember when our scientist used to just quit. Under Bush when he dismissed the report on global warming, pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol and just told us what he wanted us to hear instead. We had spent close to a billion dollars on climate science for that report.. Bush still owes the taxpayers back that billion he stole from us and our grandchildren!!!! At that point many of our leading climate scientist just quit and went to countries who still had some honor. Now they are just fired late on a Friday. Sad where we are headed.
Pray for our country and our planet.
 
May 22, 2020
2
0
10
thank you for the thorough reply. I completely agree, I just find it odd that there is no more focus into the fragility of virus. We're just going with what "seems" to be working. Soap, Sanitizer, scrubbing.

the "Scrubbing" is one thing i recall hearing more than once before and I suppose that is where my point of contention is.

It sounded like the virus would also probably die, just from the rubbing of ones hands for 20 seconds. No don't get me wrong, I'm certain they were not trying to say that you don't need soap... however it sounds as though if a virus were on our hands or a surface if we didn't use say a strong enough disinfectant the scrubbing action alone might be enough.

Are we over washing?

To counter my own argument, when we talk about surfaces it always sounds like "preliminary tests" found that it lasts a few hours to 24hours on paper and up to 72 on plastic and metal.
While as you say, it is most likely (probably in the upper 90%) close contact with infected ppl that is causing transmissions, we might say we need to focus more on the tracing of the contact path. But the lab that can answer the questions about how long they last on surfaces are not the same ppl that would be tracking the origins.

What I am getting at here is could it last longer then previously stated.

Another thing that dropped off the radar was temps and humidity. Is a Greenhouse a bad place to go?
Warm, moist, Is it protected from certain UV light in there?

We do need to focus on the community tracing YES
but after 2 months of Studies we are still hearing Preliminary on the secondary issue... the stuff we touch.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY