Submitted by Terradubia t3_1065u1q in askscience
Dhonnan t1_j3g67lk wrote
Reply to comment by Far-Contact7531 in How long does HIV remain infectious outside the body? by Terradubia
Why not in real world setting?
Faxon t1_j3g6z1p wrote
Because the real world is far less sterile than in a laboratory. People come and go, UV exposure is a factor if outdoors (this was shown to play a huge role in rendering the virus inert, which is what fueled the outdoor dining surge during the height of the pandemic), and there are all kinds of surfaces that have some amount of anti-microbial properties as well. It's why doorknobs in hospitals were historically all made with brass (and many still are), because the copper content helps kill germs that get transferred to the knob as people open and close the door. The same goes for push plates on doors without knobs, railings in bathrooms and stairwells, and other common surfaces like cabinet handles. Stainless steel has taken over due to being cheap and easy to clean, but it's not the same in terms of killing stuff that's living on it the way bronze does. That said, there's research being done on ways to passivate steel (inhibit corrosion) using copper containing ions, to such a degree that it transfers this capability to the steel. Copper is already used in some bluing solutions for steel, but you'd probably need to use a lot more applications of it than you would just to blue the steel properly.
[deleted] t1_j3hoj9a wrote
[removed]
Kantrh t1_j3g6ll1 wrote
From looking about articles on it seems that the virus doesn't survive for that long normally and the main form of transmission is from aerosolised droplets. The labs used unrealistic amounts of virus compared to real world settings
[deleted] t1_j3jqq7n wrote
[removed]
buckwurst t1_j3gew78 wrote
the real world generally doesn't have surfaces that don't move and have a constant temp.
A glass dish in a temp controlled lab in a windproof box vs. a sneezed upon lamppost for example.
QuietGanache t1_j3g6z4e wrote
There's a range of factors that could create a gulf between detecting a viable virus in the laboratory and a real-world risk of infection. For degradation, the environment is likely to be much more tightly controlled in the laboratory (low UV, reduced airflow, ect.). For exposure, a hand briefly touching a surface is very different from doing an intensive swab. For viability, the virus may be encapsulated in the fomite in such a way that it doesn't release back into the body in a viable form.
Nick-Uuu t1_j3gaqpq wrote
the test was done in serum, unless you're storing bodily fluids it's not really the same.
[deleted] t1_j3ll7vo wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments