Replies

Here is the complete paper. Frieden is lying and he knows it.

The survival of filoviruses in liquids, on solid substrates and in a dynamic aerosol

DISCUSSION

This study has demonstrated that filoviruses are able to survive and remain infectious for cell culture, for extended periods when suspended within liquid media and dried onto surfaces. In addition, decay rates of a range of filoviruses, within small-particle aerosols, have been calculated, and these rates suggest that filoviruses are able to survive and remain infectious for cell culture for at least 90 min.

SNIP

Studies with the wild-type ZEBOV and MARV strains used in these survival studies in a susceptible mouse model demonstrated 100% mortality with <10 TCID50 of either virus by the aerosol or intraperitoneal challenge route (M.S. Lever, personal communication). These low infectious dose reports suggest that if the initial viral titre is high, infectious quantities of viable virus could be recovered from samples stored at +4°C for periods of up to 46 days in liquid media, and from samples dried onto glass at both 26 and 50 days. This demonstrates the need for good control measures when handling and disposing of clinical samples that may be contaminated with filoviruses.

This study was from 2010 and was based on epidemiological studies of small rural outbreaks. This is not the case in the current pandemic and therefore primary transmission conclusions may not apply.

What is worrisome, is the low temperature sustainability of the virus. We may have been spared a disaster in Dallas with the outside vomit mess and the complete failure of our government agencies to address numerous risk factors elsewhere. I don't believe the virus stayed viable with the temperatures and UV exposure typical of Dallas in September. I am certain we will not be so lucky if this occurs in a very cold urban setting. Contact tracing would be absurd in such a case.

For everyone's consideration and comment.

120 minutes to zero survival in aerosols?

Stay back three feet?

That's woefully inadequate, and it is likely that now we know how so many have been infected, from cameramen to health care workers.

A slight breeze could carry fine droplets tens of meters in the open.

These low infectious dose reports suggest that if the initial viral titre is high, infectious quantities of viable virus could be recovered from samples stored at +4°C for periods of up to 46 days in liquid media, and from samples dried onto glass at both 26 and 50 days.

Please note that these studies were all of virus kept in the refrigerator. We already know that cold has preservative properties.

From the same article: "An initial recovery experiment showed that no virus could be recovered from any substrate stored at room temperature (results not shown)."

Gotta love those "results not shown." For the study of transmission of virus from fomites under non-laboratory conditions, those are the more important results. Ebola patients are found in room temperature environments, not the fridge.

As a consumer of scientific literature, I get very frustrated when I read "results not shown" or "[John Doe], personal communication." As a writer of scientific literature, I am completely guilty of using those phrases.

What is worrisome, is the low temperature sustainability of the virus. We may have been spared a disaster in Dallas with the outside vomit mess and the complete failure of our government agencies to address numerous risk factors elsewhere. I don't believe the virus stayed viable with the temperatures and UV exposure typical of Dallas in September. I am certain we will not be so lucky if this occurs in a very cold urban setting. Contact tracing would be absurd in such a case.

Thanks for the information...