Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cristiano-potato t1_j3fl024 wrote

Reply to comment by 1UpQuark in How long does HIV remain infectious outside the body? by Terradubia

Yeah, somehow all the quick internet answers are normally “it dies very quickly outside the body” but research indicated otherwise

237

Far-Contact7531 t1_j3fzs41 wrote

Do not compare laboratory data with real life data. Just because a virus "survives" in a lab setting for weeks it does not mean that on a real life surface it will do the same.

We also saw this with the pandemic. Lab data showed survival on surfaces up to 3 months but not in real world setting.

251

Dhonnan t1_j3g67lk wrote

Why not in real world setting?

41

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.

131

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

85

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.

14

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.

11

Nick-Uuu t1_j3gaqpq wrote

the test was done in serum, unless you're storing bodily fluids it's not really the same.

4

MonsieurReynard t1_j3h56i6 wrote

I don't think there is any known episode of surface transmission even documented for COVID. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen but it's exceedingly rare if it does.

Which makes all the wiping down and sanitizing people still do hygiene theater.

ETA lol people hate it when you tell the truth, and tell them their hand sanitizer and bleach wipe theater has no bearing whatsoever on covid risk. At some point ubiquitous dispensers of hand sanitizer became a performative way of saying "this business cares about your health," with little to no actual value except in a hospital or food service setting. Like so much else in our culture it's virtue signaling. If your business rally cared about Covid you'd have a masking requirement at all times for all people in the building, vehicle, or whatever. I laugh at people who don't bother to wear a mask but sanitize their hands a lot. There are other diseases that can help prevent, but not Covid. There's not one shred of evidence it helps.

Also gonna ruin your day: the dirtiest surface many of us touch every day is the top push button on a public hand sanitizer bottle. Think about it.if you really care about hand hygiene, soap and hot water are far more effective anyway. And any man could tell you how many fellow men don't wash their hands at all leaving a restroom.

2

ChemicalRain5513 t1_j3g4nf1 wrote

Survival doesn't mean it is likely to infect. Even if you can demonstrate that the virus stays intact in a dried blood stain, it is extremely unlikely to make it's way into your circulation from there. Since if you touch the dried stain, not much material will stick on your hands, and even if you managed to bring a few virus particles to your mouth by accident, it is not very contagious via the oral route (compared to direct blood contact or vaginal or anal intercourse).

20

[deleted] t1_j3fu6st wrote

[removed]

14

Gohron t1_j3fxdaz wrote

My understanding is that it is not even common to pass it on sexually. Perhaps there is more recent info but I recall reading research before that transmission from an infected person to a non-infected person was 1% or less (though this number varied based on the type of sex and who the infectious one was) per sexual encounter.

8

VadPuma t1_j3g132f wrote

To be clear, if the HIV+ person is under treatment and is "Undetectable", there have been no cases of transmission -- none, never, even with unprotected sex.

Although since medicine never says never, it is still recommended to use condoms.

I have no idea of the transmission rate between an HIV+ person and an as-yet infected person, such research would be unethical in the extreme. But it would depend on the viral load of the infected person, the type of sex, etc. Many factors.

The question of the virus living outside the body is anything from minutes to days (is the area in full sun, is it subjected to temperature differences/extremes, is the area being cleaned at all, etc.). Many factors. One thing would be difficult though is having the virus get from this point into a mucosal lining of another human.

Anyway, I am sure there is context to the question being asked that would allow for a more scientific answer.

11

kjhwkejhkhdsfkjhsdkf t1_j3glqj4 wrote

Yeah, it's pretty low, especially for a male having vaginal sex with an infected female.

What was really shocking to me is that when I was growing up just as the AIDS epidemic really took off in the 80s, I was under the impression that heterosexual transmission was extremely high, to the point where if you had sex with an infected person it was basically a death sentence. When I read actual transmission statistics decades later I was surprised that they're actually that low, relatively speaking to what I thought they were before.

IIRC a lot of this came from men infected with HIV that wanted to keep the fact they have sex with other men secret, so they attributed catching it to some unnamed female prostitute, and this skewed transmission statistics in M-F sex.

3

Prasiatko t1_j3gjndc wrote

Because as stated in the research above it was kept in serum. I don't know about you but the environment i live in has very little human cell compatible serum

3

nicktheone t1_j3ggg4y wrote

Lab environment isn't the same as in the world. There can be many factors that contribute to the inactivation of microbes: from the antimicrobial properties of some materials to the UV radiation of sunlight there's a huge difference in survivability when compared to a sterile and controlled environment like a lab.

2

ChornWork2 t1_j3hiwbj wrote

General answers and advice is less restrictive than what is technically possible. I'll give a personal example. I have HSV2, but orally not on my genitals. Was trying to figure out the risk of spreading it oral to oral. General advice is not unless outbreak, but technically possible since research shows can have virus present without outbreak. Notably with oral HSV2 another outbreak is almost guaranteed not to happen (and I've never had one since and it's been about 10yrs).

In any event, I wasn't satisfied with the potential discrepancy and actually emailed researchers listed on papers and was pleasantly surprised by most responding. My take away was that while none wanted to give me advice beyond referring to official sources (which for HSV2 is generally limited to genital contact), because can't rule out oral to oral happening. But they did note that if I ever thought I spread it via oral-to-oral to reach out to them because it would be a case they'd like to look into...

So outlier risk they can't rule out, but one that people shouldn't factor into their ordinary lives. So I have disclosed to all sexual partners (in certain cases preempting their status as a sexual partner, lol), but not a risk I consider otherwise with caveat of anyone I think may be immunocompromised.

1