What I don't understand about Covid19

[Roobarb]

Just time consuming I suppose and wondering if it's all driving me batty! 


Would be interested to see what Graham and Albufera have to say about the scientific aspect. 

[Albufera32]

The "scientific" answer would be that no one really knows yet how easily the virus can be transmitted, so whilst you might be being more cautious than is actually necessary, we don't actually know just what precautions are necessary, so no, you are not being over cautious.

The common sense wisdom of the ages answer would be you can never be too careful.

Take what precautions make you feel safe and secure. If it turns out some of those precautions were unnecessary, what's the harm?

[Guy Etchells]

Roobarb you are following sensible guidelines, one suggestion I would make is you could get rid of the junk mail if it really bothers you by wearing disposable latex gloves or if you cannot get any of those wearing "sandwich" food bags on your hands to pick it up.

The main way the virus is thought to spread is on droplets of moisture in the breath which is why coughing and sneezing propels the virus further from the body. The two metres distance does not prevent all the droplets of moisture reaching you but does stop the heavier droplets reaching you the heavier droplets often contain more virus "load" simple because the droplets are bigger.
It is thought the more "load" one receives the higher the risk of a serious problem.

Cheers
Guy

[Roobarb]

Thank you both, that's very helpful. 

Guy, as it happens I have a very large box of latex gloves as I use them for some of my art work, I bought the big box some time ago as it was such a bargain, I'm glad I did. I have done as you suggested and got rid of the junk mail.

Any groceries that anyone has brought for me have had their wrappers (and peel in the case of tangerines) thoroughly washed.

Although I have the support of friends in phone calls and messages it's difficult when you live on your own to know whether you're being paranoid, but of course it's better to be safe than sorry.

Thanks folks. 

[roopat]

Roobarb, we are doing the same as you. Our car had been in for urgent repair & was delivered back to us the day after the over-70s were advised to self-isolate. As soon as the nice young mechanic had left, we sprang into action with gloves, Dettol wipes etc & wiped every bit of the car he could possibly have touched, (apart from the underneath where the repair took place  ) inside & out, disposed of the gloves & wipes properly, washed hands thoroughly then left the car in the drive 72 hours before putting it away.


Probably totally over the top - but if it means we don't take up 2 NHS beds & can survive to be with our family again at the end of this, it's completely worth it.


Pat

[Roobarb]

Definitely Pat. 

I haven't driven my car for ages  . The last time was before they told us we couldn't drive to a beauty spot, the beach is only about a five minute drive but am doing what I'm told. The last time I drove it I wiped the handles inside and out and the gear stick etc that I touched during normal driving. No-one else had touched my car for a long time but I was aware that I'd touched it after handling shopping etc. That was back when I was going shopping!

[pharmaT]

Biologist here.
I think the issue is - it all depends!
There are a wide variety of surfaces - and you'd need to test many of them. For instance, some metals have a degree of antiviral activity; some are more absorbent than others; some will come into contact with people more.
Detecting the viral proteins and RNA is one thing - that's (relatively) easy. However to know whether these components come from viable virus particles is another - that would almost certainly mean investigating their infectivity. That wouldn't be a particularly safe trial on human subjects; it might be possible on other targets which could be (I don't know the detail here) tissue culture (reported in the non-peer-reviewed paper cited above) or mice.
So... need multiple tests on multiple materials. Need to test infectivity. It's likely that environmental conditions would also be important - moisture, temperature, lighting (particularly UV, I'd expect)

all of the above and then there is the chance of swabbing a surface and missing any virus particles that are still on there.  Just think about how many materials there are, how many combinations of temp, humidity, UV exposure, potentially air flow.  Some tests have suggested that there may be variation between open surfaces and nooks and crannies of the same material.

Then by necessity these tests would be carried out in controlled lab conditions.  Whereas surfaces that we will be in contact with in our daily lives are not under any form of  controlled conditions.

Best to assume somthing you've touched was contaminated and wash your hands.

[GrahamSimons]

This question has sent me off to do some detailed reading. I knew nothing about the infection and replication of coronaviruses and now understand quite a bit. They behave very differently from the viruses that we studied when I was at university, and indeed from many types of viruses that I've learned about since then.
Their replication within cells provides a number of potential treatment targets, and their external proteins are the obvious targets for a vaccination. For the technically-minded, on example of  preliminary research is reported here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 and shows the targeting of one specific protein. It's disappointing but unsurprising that reporting of this paper is wrong in at least one newspaper, referring to DNA when the virus has none.
But this isn't easy at all and I think we need to appreciate the immense amount of work and investment needed to develop, trial and produce an active medication. That cost is what is restricting the development of new antibiotics (not that antibiotics have any effect on viruses) and therefore increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance making bacterial diseases untreatable.

[pharmaT]

This question has sent me off to do some detailed reading. I knew nothing about the infection and replication of coronaviruses and now understand quite a bit. They behave very differently from the viruses that we studied when I was at university, and indeed from many types of viruses that I've learned about since then.
Their replication within cells provides a number of potential treatment targets, and their external proteins are the obvious targets for a vaccination. For the technically-minded, on example of  preliminary research is reported here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011 and shows the targeting of one specific protein. It's disappointing but unsurprising that reporting of this paper is wrong in at least one newspaper, referring to DNA when the virus has none.
But this isn't easy at all and I think we need to appreciate the immense amount of work and investment needed to develop, trial and produce an active medication. That cost is what is restricting the development of new antibiotics (not that antibiotics have any effect on viruses) and therefore increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance making bacterial diseases untreatable.

The media tend to be very bad at reporting scientific papers.  Dangerously so in many cases.