A ton of headlines in the major media outlets told us the dangers of how long the virus lasts on surfaces (3 days, we were told) - back in March and April. People were seen (myself included) cleaning groceries for 45m before putting them away, leaving packages for a few days, and using gloves.

Later it was found that the media overreacted, by obsessing over studies which were done under very specific lab conditions. From an artifical lab condition to a major headline. It was just so tempting by the editorial staff of these outlets, never letting a good crisis go to waste.

Just because it's the BBC it can't be guilty of clickbait?

There is no downside to this type of behavior. There should be, but there's not so this type of behavior will continue since it is beneficial to those posting the stories.

The harm is in the psychological manipulation to illicit germophobia for short term profits, which ends up causing more people to distrust the news outlet once they get better information...

The BBC's news has been going downhill for years.

But is it enough for infection? Current data say that infection through fomites is low, or even unlikely. Also the experiments were carried in the dark, so I wonder if they can be readily applied to everyday situations.

I wonder why at this point no one is doing studies in animals to see whether these concentrations equate with infections.

This is the only thing I've heard of lately where it was caught from an object: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/427446/rubbish-bin-the-l...

The idea is hypothetical but they seem to believe it. There does seem to be a pathetic lack of interest in the virus itself, with so much focus on 2nd and 3rd order effects.

There's a ton of interest in virus. Just look how many clinical trials are being done.

Media doesn't need to publish those because it's too hard to read and provides 0 value for an average person.

Meanwhile information how to prevent spread is obviously the utmost important.

I would like to see something like that as well. Something I read yesterday said there have been no peer reviewed studies showing surface transmission.

There are a few, but mostly don't show transmission, but persistence on objects in hospital settings. That said, most of them seem to exclude the fomite hypothesis.

That said, it is highly unlikely that it is a prominent way to get infected, assuming it occurs: with the numbers of positive people in the world, it would've become known by that.

Of note:

> The experiments were carried out in the dark, as UV light has already been shown to kill the virus.

It’s still relevant when considering, for example, frozen goods. Those usually ship in cold and dark environments. In fact, at least initially there was a theory that the new outbreak in NZ was caused by frozen foods shipped from China (and that an outbreak in China was caused by frozen food shipped from the US). I haven’t been following so I’m not sure what the results of the investigations were but at least now we know it’s a possibility.

The NZ outbreak was not from the cold storage facility, that got ruled out eventually.