| First: that is an entirely computational study. Computational studies are a great starting point but must be confirmed with real world tests Second: stability != surface viability. The study literally mentions nothing about the ability of the virus to survive on inanimate objects. Yes some proteins may be more stable in some cases, but we need to test the viability of actual virus particles taken from actual surfaces after varying residence times Third: all real world evidence and meta-analyses have come to the conclusion of extremely limited to no viability from fomites Fourth: the part of the study which mentions stability has the following gem: >Regarding stability scores, the researchers discovered that the stability across all spike proteins ranged between 32.8 and 34.7, slightly below the value of 40 that indicates a protein is structurally unsound. These proteins are not very stable to begin with, so marginal improvement over wildtype basically says nothing. Not to mention the article does not mention fomites anywhere at all. So you literally cannot draw that conclusion. That is what shitty popsci reporters do, which is the wrong way to interpret research. We just cannot make logical jumps like that when dealing with insanely complex systems which we don't fully understand. It's going to take way more than a single, limited computational exploration of protein structural stability to convince me of fomite viability. I'm saying this as a formally trained biochemist |