If the vast majority of transmission occurs through the air rather than fomites , and airborne transmission is what is driving superspreading events , then we should shift our effort toward cleaning shared air , not shared surfaces .” has ever gotten COVID-19 by touching a contaminated surface .’ During the early days of the pandemic , many experts believed that the virus spread primarily through large respiratory droplets . These droplets are too heavy to travel long distances through the air but can fall onto objects and surfaces . In this context , a focus on scrubbing down every surface seemed to make sense . ‘ Surface cleaning is more familiar ,’ Dr . Marr said . ‘ We know how to do it . You can see people doing it , you see the clean surface . And so , I think it makes people feel safer .’ But over the last year , it has become increasingly clear that the virus spreads primarily through the air — in both large and small droplets , which can remain aloft longer — and that scouring door handles and subway seats does little to keep people safe . ‘ The scientific basis for all this concern about surfaces is very slim — slim to none ,’ said Emanuel Goldman , a microbiologist at Rutgers University , who wrote last summer that the risk of surface transmission had been overblown . ‘ This is a virus you get by breathing . It ’ s not a virus you get by touching .’”
Experts quoted in the Anthes ( 2020 ) article essentially stated that catching the virus from surfaces remains theoretically possible , but “ it requires many things to go wrong : a lot of fresh , infectious viral particles to be deposited on a surface , and then for a relatively large quantity of them to be quickly transferred to someone ’ s hand and then to their face .” Essentially , many experts emphasize that presence of viral matter on a surface does not equal risk . However , the CDC guidelines for the public suggest that if someone who has COVID-19 has been in a particular space within the last day , the area should be both cleaned and disinfected .
And fomites in public are not the same as in a healthcare setting , with the CDC noting that the new cleaning guidelines do not apply to healthcare facilities , which may require more intensive cleaning and disinfection .
Anthes ( 2020 ) quoted Saskia Popescu , an infectious disease epidemiologist at George Mason University , as noting that she was happy to see the new guidance , which “ reflects our evolving data on transmission throughout the pandemic .” But she noted that it remained important to continue doing some regular cleaning — and maintaining good handwashing practices — to reduce the risk of contracting not just the coronavirus but any other pathogens that might be lingering on a particular surface .
That said , the assault on fomite-mediated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in non-healthcare settings continues , and it could be a liability from the standpoint of community-acquired COVID-19 cases .
Allen , et al . ( 2020 ) emphatically stated , “ We don ’ t have a single documented case of COVID-19 transmission from surfaces . Not one . So why , then , are we spending a small fortune to deep clean our offices , schools , subways and buses ? Business leaders , school districts and government officials often ask us whether people are over-cleaning in response to the pandemic . The short answer is yes . The reality is that the novel coronavirus spreads mainly through the air . Especially with regular handwashing , there ’ s no need to constantly disinfect surfaces … Transmission of a disease through fomites — the name given to any inanimate surface that can be contaminated with a virus — is certainly possible . Many viruses , such as rhinovirus and norovirus , are transmitted through contaminated surfaces . But that ’ s just not really the case for COVID-19 . We don ’ t know exactly how much fomite transmission occurs for COVID-19 , but evidence suggests it ’ s not common .”
Knowing that medical experts would point to the causal chain , Allen , et al . ( 2020 ) explained the tortured path a virus would need to take : “ First , the virus must be transmitted to a surface , either by a sick person touching it or a respiratory droplet landing on it . Once on the surface , the virus starts to decay , and the only studies that show that the virus can survive on a surface for a long time used unrealistically large amounts of it — as in , someone spits a blob of saliva on the surface . The coronavirus ’ s genetic material has been found on all kinds of surfaces in hospitals and in the air , but , interestingly , it has only been successfully cultured from the air . No data studies that we are aware of have cultured the virus from surfaces . Even if you were the unfortunate person who immediately grabbed a door handle right after an infectious person sneezed on it , there would be a significant reduction in how much is transferred from the surface onto your hand . Then , time is your friend again , inactivating the virus , even while on your hand . But what if you touched that contaminated doorknob and then immediately touched your mouth ? Not all the virus on the hand would get transferred to the mouth , and that ’ s not even the end of the story . The virus that did make it into your mouth would need to find an appropriate receptor there or make it to your respiratory tract .”
They add that if fomite-mediated transmission is happening , “ it ’ s minor and certainly not driving the pandemic . Meanwhile , we have plenty of examples of airborne transmission . Consider the choir practice that infected nearly 90 percent of socially distanced members . It ’ s hard to explain that from shared surfaces .” Allen , et al . ( 2020 ) continue , “ Most important , we can prevent fomite transmission through regular handwashing or use of hand sanitizer . Cleaning every surface after every touch is an impossible task ; the easier and more effective approach is to break the chain at the person .”
Allen , et al . ( 2020 ) point to what they call the “ ghost problem ” of intense focus on fomite transmission , an issue upon which “ organizations are spending massive amounts of time and money .” They cite non-healthcare examples in the public sector , adding , “… the use of all of these extra cleaning products releases chemicals into the air that can be harmful to our health . Much of this is hygiene theater . If the enhanced cleaning was keeping people safe , we ’ d be all for it . But it ’ s not , according to a study comparing different interventions across countries . This money and time is better spent elsewhere . We should continue to wash our hands and pay attention to hygiene , but we only have so much time , energy and money to spend on reducing the risk of transmission . If the vast majority of transmission occurs through the air rather than fomites , and airborne transmission is what is driving superspreading events , then we should shift our effort toward cleaning shared air , not shared surfaces .”