Shipped tea virus risk; coronavirus status

This issue keeps coming up in online groups lately, if someone can get the corona virus from tea shipped from China.  The short answer:  of course not.  I'll add a longer answer and move on to more relevant concerns. 

As of February 11 this post adds a later study on different forms of coronavirus survival time-frames from the most recent studies on the subject, included at the end.

Here's an example discussion link from International Tea Talk, the group I moderate.  The short version of the best informed feedback is that viruses can only survive on hard surfaces like glass and steel for 24 to 48 hours, and on paper and cloth for 12 or less, and probably can't be transmitted for all of that time, likely losing that potential towards the end of those time-frames.  A package shipped for two or more days poses no risk.  The only exception is in the case of mucus serving as a support medium; if a vendor included a used tissue that might pose more risk.

Don't take my word for it; read this well-referenced Quora answer post by an immunologist, or this summary article.

Status of coronavirus, about opposing interpretations

Isn't it funny how all references online only claim this is probably the worst epidemic to occur since the Spanish flu just over 100 years ago (which killed something like 20-50 million people), or else that there is nothing to worry about.  Which is it?  Why couldn't a more balanced answer be in the middle, pointing towards a range of different outcomes, assessing probabilities?  This discussion comment sums that up (from this related post by a vendor):

In a war on attention, things are either relevant or not relevant, a threat or not a threat. Otherwise, it requires management and status upkeep. A complete difference in how your brain processes it and curates it to your personal social feed. This is the "why" it is communicated that way. But that doesn't get signal-boosted.

So it really has noting to do with the actual risk level, or likely outcome, it's about what people pay attention to.  If that comment is accurate, which seems the case to me.  As to current status, this is the best reference as to where the virus is and current mortality rate:

summary information as of February 4, 2020

How to place that?  The graph of spread of the virus might be more helpful:

That helps a little, but it's still hard to place.  The mortality rate seems to be the issue:  that current 2% mortality rate (426/20574) is much higher than for the typical flu, which is said to run around .1% in online discussions.  It's hard to get a clear reference number confirming that, but this Wikipedia table offers some input on pandemics:

The seasonal flu is already killing 300-650,000 people per year, at that .1% mortality rate (roughly).  The 2009 H1N1 pandemic alone killed 105-395,000 at around a .03% fatality rate (so all that much lower).

So there's the risk:  if the upper-side estimate for H1N1 exposure occurs in this case, 200 million, then 4 million people might be killed.  Of course treatment options would turn up long before the stats reached that level, just as "Tamiflu" came on the scene back in the 2009 case, and even completely ineffective containment efforts would offset some degree of exposure.

It's something to think through, but not necessarily the Biblical plague level concern the one reporting extreme makes it out to be.  If it evolves to spread more effectively and become more deadly that could still change.

Other concerns

This now-dated January 28 CNN article on the corona virus included this photo that changed my perspective on this subject:

Someone might think, that's crazy to wear a bottle and a mask, but look and think again.  Those are people dealing with fear, panic, and real risk.  There are people I care a great deal about living in China right now.  Even without that personal link they're still people, experiencing real health risk.  What if my daughter came to fear a disease that might kill her?

How to even put that in perspective though?  According to this recent CNBC article the flu has killed 10,000 people in the US alone this season, out of 19 million affected.  As that article points out the accuracy of the numbers of infected in China becomes critical; if 100,000 people have had that virus instead of the 20,000 confirmed that actual mortality rate drops by a factor of 5.

Eventually there is no response but to wait and see how this plays out, to make preparations but not overstate concerns.  Thai doctors are experimenting on the few test cases available, testing out drug coctails on them to see what's effective.  Ordinarily that would seem like sloppy methodology, in contrast with more extensive and careful research, but within these circumstances to me it seems commendable.

All that also seems to set aside what the Chinese people are experiencing now, which never has properly been considered in any media article I've yet to see.  The Australian bushfires made for a better story; very graphic, and relatable, happening to a people that seem a lot more familiar to Americans, English-speaking cousins, of a sort.  That 2019-20 bushfire season has killed at least 34 people so far; essentially as many as a bus accident, or four times the impact of Kobe Bryant's helicopter crash, in terms of body count.  Maybe people were instead concerned about the environmental impact, and the nearly countless animals that were killed?  It seems more likely it's just a story that played better; hell-scape images were more relatable than photos of frightened Chinese kids.

Maybe US citizens can better relate to the risk to themselves.  If 2% of the 19 million already affected with the flu had died at that 2% mortality rate that would be 380,000 deaths.  It would be them instead of Chinese people isolated in fear, wondering if the people around them might infect them.


Compassion and empathy really should become a bit more universal.  It's going to be hard to assess what should trigger that, given so many different horrors are causing so much impact day to day.  Here in Thailand we turn a blind eye to our own local traffic mortality statistics, because that's the real risk looming over daily life.  It helps where I live, in Bangkok, that gridlock prevents driving at speeds that would be fatal to a car passenger.  The air we breath also poses long term risk; inputs like that are hard to fully evaluate.

from my office yesterday, when air quality index readings were around 150; unhealthy

perspective is everything; with just a bit of zooming in air haze turns much milkier

This should end on a bright note, shouldn't it, given the dreary and fatalistic tone so far?  The worst case isn't that the world is coming to an end, and actual final impact should be limited, from this cause.

Human nature is the part that most disappoints me, and there are plenty of examples of bright, hopeful, effective souls out there making small changes for the better.  The malaise stemming from apathy and general stupidity often seems a much more significant factor, but the hopeless optimist in me accepts that darkness might only be a sign of impending dawn, or maybe even a positive cause that will bring it about.  Maybe the world might need drawn-out catastrophes like Donald Trump to improve.

We only need to think bigger, look deeper, clear a bit of mental clutter and wrong focus, to make the differences we can make.  And to raise up a next generation of heroes to do better where we failed.

Edit and update:

In discussing this online a contact mentioned another article estimating the maximum life-span for the coronavirus to live on hard surfaces:

Scientists Predict Coronavirus May Live For Up To Nine Days On Surfaces


A new analysis looking at data from different types of coronavirus has shown that many strains can live on surfaces such as glass, plastic or metal, for up to nine days.

The work published yesterday in The Journal of Hospital Infection looked at 22 historical studies on different types of coronavirus, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses...

...The review found that on average, coronaviruses can live on surfaces for between four and five days, but some could survive for up to nine days outside of the body at room temperature.

“Low temperature and high air humidity further increase their lifespan,” said Kampf.

It is important to note that the review article only took into account data from other types of coronaviruses like SARS and MERS to make their conclusions as no data of this type currently exists on nCoV2019, the strain in the current outbreak... 


That's not as bad as it sounds related to extending that estimated time viruses can survive on limited surfaces for 48 hours, since it still does relate to hard surfaces, on glass or metal, for example.  In the other references cited earlier there was a differentiation between the maximum time a virus might be tested as alive versus the more limited time a virus was likely to be viable enough to be transferred. 

And even if viruses could live on other surface types (eg. on paper), which isn't being claimed, it's unlikely that shipping conditions would provide the optimum low temperature and high humidity environment to enable them to survive longer.  Air freight shipping could involve quite low temperature but would probably also relate to very low humidity levels.

To me this changes nothing related to the prior conclusion here that packaged goods shipped out of China are completely safe.  It is interesting considering additional virus-specific information though.

While I'm at it I'll update virus impact status, as of February 11, from this main source:

It's still not time to panic yet but a week after this initial post it's still too early to predict how this situation will continue to evolve.