I thought it could survive up to two weeks on a flat surface.
I wonder if it varies on the variant?
“...particularly the findings that contradict the research conducted by other research.”’
But...but...but...Herr Mengele-Fauci says the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
“This would seem to contradict the seasonality of the virus, a pattern that has held for the last two winters.”
My understanding is that some viruses proliferate in the winter because people tend to remain indoors together for longer periods in that season, not because of the outdoor temperatures.
IOWs the masks protect the virus more than the people wearing them.
20 minutes? That’s no comfort.
“Lockdowns macht frei “
"Another iconoclastic finding from the study: the temperature of the air made no difference to viral infectivity, contradicting the widely held belief that viral transmission is lower at higher temperatures. This would seem to contradict the seasonality of the virus, a pattern that has held for the last two winters."
The drop in warmer weather is mainly due to more ppl being outside.
This is added by the Guardian and ventilation should not be minimized. While some degree of physical distancing and not speaking forcefully in close conversations should be the norm in conversation today, and masking can reduce viral load which (other aspects being equal) may relate to the severity of symptomatic infection, yet as in being outside in a wind, if coronavirus loses 90% of its ability to infect us within 20 minutes of becoming airborne due to drying out and masking can reduce viral load, then it stands to reason that the more ventilation of dry air is increased occurs then the more drying out will occur as well as lowering of viral load. Which is consistent with study which finds that 94% of transmission occurred in household-type settings.
And what the linked study actually says when it mentions ventilation is that,
Elevation of CO 2 levels within a room is taken as a clear sign of occupancy and poor ventilation. There has been increasing discussion surrounding the use of CO 2 monitors as a means of determining the relative risk of COVID-19 transmission in various settings. The data from this study give further credence to this approach. Not only is elevated CO 2 an indication of a densely occupied, poorly ventilated space, but it could also be indicative of an environment in which SARS-CoV-2 is more stable in the air.
Meanwhile (excerpt from an extensive compilation of research) a systematic review of peer-reviewed papers stated that five studies found a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors and that the odds of indoor transmission was very high (almost 19 times higher) as compared to outdoors. [84]A more recent estimate reported by the New York Times is that the percentage of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent.[85]
In another report researchers analyzed 54 studies with more 77,000 participants reporting household secondary transmission of coronavirus, which overall found that the risk of catching COVID-19 from family member one lives with was 16.6%.[96] However, researchers also found that just 9% of original cases were responsible for 80% of infections detected in close contacts, and that stay-at-home orders brought only marginal benefit in preventing infections, and actually can increase infections and that encounters that were most likely to spread the coronavirus were those between members of the same household.[97]