18

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated that is 'safe' to receive packages from China.

e.g. from their Facebook page

Text-based image

Is it safe to receive a letter or package from China?

Yes, it is safe. People receiving packages from China are not at risk of contracting the new coronavirus. From previous analysis, we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects, such as letters or packages.

No citation is provided.

Doing some quick searches on coronavirus survivability, I found a recent paper titled Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents

It contains a table of the persistence of coronavirus on various surfaces.

In summary, the survivability of SARS is 4-5 days on metal and paper.

SARS is another coronavirus, and I believe the RNA sequence is 80% identical to 2019-nCov. Similar survivability could be expected.

Most of the tests in the above paper were carried out at room temperature. However it states that TGEV, another coronavirus, can last 28 days at 4°C.

A higher temperature such as 30°C or 40°C reduced the duration of persistence of highly pathogenic MERS-CoV, TGEV and MHV. However, at 4°C persistence of TGEV and MHV can be increased to ≥ 28 days

This appears to contradict the WHO claim.

Listed below are some examples of expedited international delivery from China to various countries.

  • USA

    • Fedex International Priority: 3.2 days.
    • UPS Expedited: 3.9 days

  • Japan: 3 days

  • Australia: 3 days

  • UK: 5 days

I do believe that most packages received from China will be safe but is the WHO ignoring the possibility of risk in the following scenarios:

  1. You live in a country in the vicinity of China with delivery times < 5 days

  2. You live in China and you open a package that was sent in the last 5 days.

  3. You open a package sent from China by express delivery.

UPDATE further references:

"SARS-CoV retained its infectivity for up to 9 days" Stability and inactivation of SARS coronavirus - Rabenau HF

"enveloped viruses, including H1N1 and human coronaviruses, remain infectious on surfaces after several days" Survival of Enveloped and Non-Enveloped Viruses on Inanimate Surfaces

Mike Seeds
  • 319
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8
  • 1
    Meta question, how safe from unintentional exposure to pathogens in general is it to receive any package? Maybe there's a cleanliness procedure we should all be doing anyway when we open our weekly Amazon boxes. –  Mar 04 '20 at 22:05
  • @fredsbend Most pathogens do not survive long on surfaces, you are far more likely to encounter pathogens touching surfaces in public spaces. – Mike Seeds Apr 02 '20 at 18:28
  • At the time of posting, these studies were not well known but have since been referenced by other academics and covered in the MSM. My opinion at this stage is that the WHO was wrong to declare that packages are safe, whether they come from China or another affected region. If the virus had poor survivability public health authorities would have no reason to perform mass disinfection of streets etc. As this gets closer to home, even if the survivability is a few hours it poses a risk. It is likely that millions of people have developed a false sense of security because of this WHO publication. – Mike Seeds Apr 02 '20 at 18:43

3 Answers3

20

In an attempt to back up the WHO's claim but not using their data or statement. The 'Corona 2019' virus is a specific variant of the more general corona virus family. Further, this family is part of a broader family of viruses known as enveloped viruses, with envelops usually composed of lipids and proteins, and are required for a virus to be infectious to a host cell:

Functions of the envelope protein: Despite its enigmatic nature, research conducted to date has been able to propose three roles for the CoV E protein. The interaction between the cytoplasmic tails of the M and E proteins drives VLP production, suggesting that E participates in (1) viral assembly [56, 61, 89]. The hydrophobic TMD of E is also crucial to the (2) release of virions [40, 53, 159]. Lastly, SARS-CoV E is implicated in the (3) pathogenesis of the virus [18, 82, 87]. The progress made in these three aspects of E will be reviewed accordingly.

Source: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-019-1182-0

Enveloped viruses are easier to disarm since the envelop itself is easily destroyed by drying out, alcohol exposure, and temperature, which can denature the lipid layer and proteins. Studies have shown that regular drying from air can drastically impact the non-host lifetime of enveloped viruses:

Non-enveloped viruses, such as coxsackieviruses, rotavirus, or poliovirus, can survive for extended periods on surfaces (9, 10), while enveloped viruses, including H1N1 and human coronaviruses, remain infectious on surfaces after several days

Enveloped viruses were more sensitive than non-enveloped viruses in the second phase of viral persistence, which started when liquid was no longer observed on the lids; H1N1 and HSV-1 were inactivated in 5 d and 3 d, whereas [non-enveloped viruses] CVB4 was inactivated in 6 weeks and MVM continued to be infectious.

Source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4462923/

In the latter study, it is important to note that those survival times were likely optimal cases, since the study itself was attempting to see the survivability rate of enveloped viruses and was done under very specific circumstances and under controlled temperature. The general infectious viability of enveloped viruses in non-host, uncontrolled conditions is very low:

The genome of either virus could be detected on most surfaces 24 h after application with relatively little drop in copy number, with the exception of unsealed wood surfaces. In contrast, virus viability dropped much more rapidly. Live virus was recovered from most surfaces tested four hours after application and from some non-porous materials after nine hours, but had fallen below the level of detection from all surfaces at 24 h.

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027932

While it isn't stated explicitly for most of that study (only a small mention at the end), the viability of the virus stated is functionally because the H1N1 is also an enveloped virus.

Technically it comes down to what your view of what is "safe." However, by research of general enveloped viruses, and there has been no evidence that the 2019 corona virus is any different, an enveloped virus is unlikely to be infectious after a short period of time in an uncontrolled environment both from drying as well as temperature changes. Packages and other shipments would certainly count as an inhospitable uncontrolled environment for enveloped viruses. Statistically it is possible, but such a small chance that it is unlikely to be of any legitimate cause for concern, especially compared to directly infectious individuals and the like.

Jarrod Christman
  • 300
  • 1
  • 8
  • 1
    Nice to see proper skepticism, instead of just appeal to authority. Good work, though be careful not to cross this site's ban on original research. –  Mar 04 '20 at 22:12
19

You are quoting the WHO and then say 'no citation is provided'. The WHO is the source. They are well equipped to research these kind of questions and it is part of their job to issue recommendations and rules about these kind of things.

So receiving a package from China is safe, source the WHO. On the other hand, travelling to Wuhan in person is currently not recommended, source also the WHO.

As a commentor noted, this answer assumes that the statement is actually from the WHO and not a fake. This is the case, see this WHO site.

quarague
  • 1,474
  • 9
  • 13
  • 14
    I do not doubt that the WHO is well equipped to research the virus, but I want to see a paper and actual test results. The statement "we know coronaviruses do not survive long on objects, such as letters or packages." The statement may be true for 2019-ncov but for the coronavirus family it is incorrect. The behaviour of the Chinese authorities i.e mass disinfection shows that they might be concerned about the virus surviving on surfaces. – Mike Seeds Feb 11 '20 at 09:12
  • 7
    @MikeSeeds A proper peer reviewed paper on the Coronavirus won't be available until well after the current epidemic is over. The process of writing and peer reviewing takes a lot of time. The only information available now will come from either national or international health bodies like the WHO. The Chinese health ministry presumably also does similar research, I don't know whether they make public recommendations about sending packages. What other source do you want? – quarague Feb 11 '20 at 09:24
  • 18
    This is an appeal-to-authority fallacy. The WHO isn't an infallible source. An answer here should give us a reference that we can follow up to check. You may be right that they have conducted experiments that produce these results - in that case they should be published so they can be reviewed for error and reproduced. If that hasn't happened, then there is no answer to the question. – Oddthinking Feb 11 '20 at 12:24
  • 3
    (I was astonished at a [recent twitter thread](https://twitter.com/HorsingJig/status/1224341449627635718) that showed how fast science was proceeding on 2019-nCoV with preprints (not yet published in peer-reviewed journals). There are sites dedicated to getting eyeballs on papers related to current epidemics as soon as they can, to speed up the scientific process in emergencies.) – Oddthinking Feb 11 '20 at 12:29
  • 2
    @Oddthinking It is an appeal to a reputable source, you can call it an authority if you want, but there is no fallacy here. If instead I would city professor x and university y said so in this paper, how would that be any different? It would also just refer to some authority. If OP had instead asked 'my favorite TV station said, receiving packages from China is save', is that true? Than pointing out, yes it is, the WHO says so would be a perfectly valid answer. – quarague Feb 11 '20 at 12:30
  • 7
    You are perfectly describing the [appeal-to-authority fallacy](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority). Pointing out that the WHO said so in such circumstances would be a pretty poor answer (but at least it would be [slightly higher up the evidence ladder](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2526/may-i-cite-a-single-article/2528#2528) than the originally doubted claim, which this answer isn't). – Oddthinking Feb 11 '20 at 12:34
  • 13
    Let's not go too far. In a question about some unsourced and unlikely-sounding Facebook meme about the virus, it would be quite reasonable to source the WHO's guidance as evidence (and past well-received answers on this site have cited WHO information as their primary or only source). In this particular case, though, where the original claim was undisputedly made *by the WHO*, it's clear that the OP is looking for more direct support of the claim. – Sneftel Feb 11 '20 at 12:41
  • @Sneftel: If there are any answers that relies only on claims from the WHO without any evidence or references (about the real world, not WHO plans or policy), please flag them. – Oddthinking Feb 11 '20 at 21:34
  • 2
    I feel like the asked question “is it safe” is adequately answered—not all appeals to authority are fallacies; we’re tasked with proving a negative, and the WHO would be aware if people were getting sick from packages (absence of evidence). I would not feel the same if the question was “does the coronavirus survive no longer than 5 days on metal and paper?” – Rebecca J. Stones Feb 12 '20 at 06:58
  • 1
    @RebeccaJ.Stones For the WHO the task is not proof a negative but to release information about the survivability of coronavirus. The research I linked suggests that it may theoretically possible however unlikely. I believe the WHO's advice is lacking. One example is that we know the virus spreads by droplet infection, yet the WHO's advice is to only wear a mask if you are taking care of someone that has contracted COVID or work in the healthcare system. Note the contrast between the Chinese response (illegal not to wear a face mask in public in some cities). – Mike Seeds Feb 12 '20 at 10:09
  • 2
    @MikeSeeds: Primary use of those masks is to reduce the risk of *you*, the carrier, contaminating surfaces. Masks like that provide mostly secondary protection, by keeping you from touching your nose or mouth with contaminated hands. To actually protect you from inhaling pathogenic *aerosol*, the masks would have to be *much* finer. [Morgenpost.de](https://www.morgenpost.de/ratgeber/article228230799/Mundschutz-gegen-Coronavirus-Was-Atemschutzmasken-bringen-welche-FFP-Klasse-wirkungsvoll.html) – DevSolar Feb 17 '20 at 15:31
  • @DevSolar I don't fully agree with that statement. Yes the virus is < 3 microns but we currently believe that the virus spreads by droplet infection. Water droplets from sneezing etc can remain suspended in the air for some time. They are > 3 microns so a properly fitted N95 or greater mask will provide some protection. I think much of the information put out by the media recently regarding this topic was to stop a run on masks. – Mike Seeds Feb 17 '20 at 16:33
  • @MikeSeeds: Well, a friend of mine has just now started working on the virus at Marburg, so I guess I'll be at the frontlines information-wise. Doesn't help for answering Skeptics.SE questions though. :-D – DevSolar Feb 17 '20 at 19:27
  • 2
    @Oddthinking -- Appeal to Authority is not a fallacy, and your own link admits major caveats as to whether "appeal to authority" is always a fallacy. Most other fallacy guides make clear that it is not. The fallacy is "Appeal to irrelevant authority". Here are links which make this point more clearly: https://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoAuthority https://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/authority.html https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html – Dcleve Feb 18 '20 at 18:11
  • 1
    @Oddthinking It's a bit funny that you chose to delete my answer on the grounds "`Deleted due to refusal to post references, in accordance with policy`", when I clearly said that there are no references for this topic for COVID-19, since they simply have not been produced yet. In court I would scream "overreach!". – not2qubit Feb 18 '20 at 22:07
  • 2
    @RebeccaJ.Stones What makes you believe that "WHO would be aware" of such a thing? They are clearly an organization that get their info for their collaborative partners who are not particularly better nor more informed than other researcher in the same field. I find such a statement slightly naive, especially in light how WHO failed in their information for H1N1 pandemic in 2009, and on several other well documented occasions. They are not some kind of deity, and we should be very careful taking all they say, *de facto*. – not2qubit Feb 18 '20 at 22:14
  • @not2qubit: That was just one of the many unreferenced claims that you made and declined to fix. For every single significant claim in an answer, answer the question 'Says who?' – Oddthinking Feb 18 '20 at 23:32
  • 1
    @Oddthinking Well, apart the obvious "safety" precautions of using a face-mask and gloves, most of the references where given in the cross-linked post in the comments to my *Biology* SE answer. But you decided to delete my answer in less than 24 hours, so basically I did not even have time to copy paste those, since I am most likely in a different timezone than you. – not2qubit Feb 19 '20 at 09:47
  • 1
    Can't believe how many upvotes this answer has. Not many skeptics on this site it seems. – Mike Seeds Feb 21 '20 at 20:56
  • Question: I saw a medical claim on Facebook. Answerer: I know, I'll cite the WHO! Everyone else: But the medical claim was by the WHO! – Andrew Grimm Feb 29 '20 at 08:50
  • 1
    The WHO is not immune to giving faulty PSAs. Such things aren't as rigorously tested as, say, recommended vaccination protocols for certain travel. There's several political reasons a global entity wouldn't want to condemn deliveries from the world's largest exporter. –  Mar 04 '20 at 22:08
-2

CDC: There is still a lot that is unknown about the newly emerged COVID-19 and how it spreads. Two other coronaviruses have emerged previously to cause severe illness in people (MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV). The virus that causes COVID-19 is more genetically related to SARS-CoV than MERS-CoV, but both are betacoronaviruses with their origins in bats. While we don’t know for sure that this virus will behave the same way as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, we can use the information gained from both of these earlier coronaviruses to guide us. In general, because of poor survivability of these coronaviruses on surfaces, there is likely very low risk of spread from products or packaging that are shipped over a period of days or weeks at ambient temperatures. Coronaviruses are generally thought to be spread most often by respiratory droplets. Currently there is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19 associated with imported goods and there have not been any cases of COVID-19 in the United States associated with imported goods. Learn more about COVID-19.

Sonia Lee
  • 105
  • 1
    Your source repeats the claim, but gives no evidence to support it. Why do they believe it is true? (The OP have reasons to believe it is false.) – Oddthinking Feb 29 '20 at 08:22