Some are. On the other hand, whether it makes you roll your eyes or not, some people are extremely paranoid about anything entering their house that hasn't been sterilized in some form. And, given that, zapping a book in a microwave is not an obviously stupid way to accomplish said sterilization for a random non-technical person.
I'm pretty sure libraries are reopened in lots of places. My town library has reopened for curbside pickups and I think may be reopening for browsing in a week or so. And that's in Massachusetts which has been relatively conservative.
Mine recently re-opened. Now that we've had some time to research how this virus spreads, and discovered that surface transmission really isn't as big a deal as we initially feared, I'm not so worried about it.
You can quarantine them for a few days after checking them out, if you like. Just like mail. Or pizza deliveries.
All the libraries in my city are open for pickup. I think the benefits of people without e-readers being able to take out books from the library far outweigh any tiny chance of transmission via books.
You don't need a dedicated ebook reader, a phone or computer will work too. Of course some people don't have anything like that either, but I think most probably do at this point.
Furthermore, many people who check a lot of books out of libraries on a regular basis are checking out children's books. I'm guessing the Kindle experience isn't the same.
I disagree. If you don't know the likely outcome of putting something in the microwave, you shouldn't do it. I have no idea if this would work for sterilization. I don't know if or when a book would catch fire. Trying to do this to find out by experimentation is stupid on multiple levels. It's not your book. It's a fire hazard. You have no way of verifying if it is sterilized. You can have empathy for someone and still think they're dumb.
I fully agree with you, but the CNN article certainly tries to make a very condescending point.
"Let me spell it for you: don't microwave your books!" - and based on just an isolated incident. By writing an article about this they may create an impression that this is a popular trend whereas it's not.
In fact, I imagine more people would actually try to microwave their books after reading this article.
Of course you see the exact same condescension in this thread from the tech people who are so smart that they would never do something that others would think was stupid.
In that case I think it's better to talk with these people about their anxiety and the mental toll of the pandemic rather than encouraging them to microwave random things. You're more likely to set your house on fire by throwing flammable things into the microwave than getting corona-virus
Isn't transmission through objects completely irrelevant anyways? Also, microwaves don't heat very small dry objects such as viruses, so it is pointless to microwave books.
Lab studies have shown that the virus stays around in recognizable form for 1-3 days depending on temperature, humidity, and porosity. E.g. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973 I have not heard of any cases of spread via objects and I think it would be a pretty small fraction, but maybe relatively more risky for a book than other objects. Lots of people lick their fingers for adhesion when flipping pages.
Infection requires a certain level of exposure that you're unlikely (I would say, impossible) to reach merely by touching (unless it's a droplet and you shove it up your nose or something...).
Picking your nose, sure, but also rubbing your eyes or putting your finger on your lips in a thoughtful gesture.
"Unlikely" is certainly true, but different people have different risk tolerances. And if it were really as simple as microwaving the book, this would be pretty reasonable!
The virus needs to settle in the airways to reach the level of infection.
I understand people's reaction, it's hard to sort all the messages from the media & health authorities, but it's still sad that so many have seemingly abandoned common sense.
> On Jan 22, Guangfa Wang, a member of the national expert panel on pneumonia, reported that he was infected by 2019-nCoV during the inspection in Wuhan.2
> He wore an N95 mask but did not wear anything to protect his eyes. Several days before the onset of pneumonia, Wang complained of redness of the eyes. Unprotected exposure of the eyes to 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan Fever Clinic might have allowed the virus to infect the body.2
The studies were done on cells (taking a sample from the surface after minutes or hours and trying to infect them - if they die, there is infectious virus there), but cells in culture don't have an immune system, nor they have physical barriers like nose and mouth.
At this point animal studies are necessary to determine whether there is significant infection through items or not. Given the spread of the virus in the world, I think it is unlikely at this point, though (it would've been noticed if significant).
I also want to point out that a respiratory virus's #1 (or perhaps only) means of transmission is via the airways, I don't think it's reasonable to expect even licking your fingers would result in an infection.
I'm open to proof or hints of proof in that direction, I just don't see it ATM, based on what I've read on contagion events.
Exactly. I would be a disaster if the viruses were indeed viable this way, I think excessive hygiene actually harms the immune system by restricting eustress from other bugs.
I think the crux of the problem is that folks are not trusting authorities anymore, and information, sometimes conflicting is coming from everywhere. No single unifying source has appeared to keep folks on common ground, especially since this is a rapidly changing situation, and what was thought to be true 2 weeks ago is no longer considered true.
Our local library is holding returned items in isolation for 72 hrs before returning them to general circulation, which seems to be in line with what I've seen most experts recommend currently.
There's a lot of variation in even well-intentioned "expert" information out there. And, in any case, people need to make their own risk assessments. I'm not going to tell you that you're not allowed to literally lock yourself in your house. But I'm not going to do so (under my and my location's current conditions).
And not everyone is in a position to independently evaluate from first principles what precautions are appropriate and which are insufficient, unhelpful, or excessive.
According to the BfR institute, it can live for 24 hours on cardboard, I would imagine that it is the same for paper [0]. Outside of a lab it is probably significantly shorter than that. Given that there have been no known cases of transmission via objects I think the risk is very low.
Ya, but I still hate pealimg them off my own books at home, especially those bought online. The worst are the thick tags that either cause the hard cover not to shut properly or leave an impression in soft covers.
> Reminder that KDL will quarantine returned materials for 72 hours.
That protects you from viruses left on the book by the prior person who checked it out.
But what about viruses left on the book by people who used the book at the library but did not check it out?
If you are actually worried about possible transmission via library books, you would need to do your own quarantine of the book after you check it out before you start reading it.
Edit: Note that I'm not saying risk of virus transmission via library books is something you actually need to care about. But some people obviously do think it is a risk, or we wouldn't be reading a story about people microwaving library books.
The library is trying to address those (possibly irrational) fears by pointing out that they quarantine the books when they are returned.
All I'm saying is that if someone fears (however irrationally) getting a virus from library books, then they are probably going to want the quarantine to come between them checking out the book and them starting to read the book.
If you're this risk adverse, what are you even doing outside your home in the first place?
Edit: Do the downvoters earnestly believe the risk of going out in public at all doesn't dwarf the risk of touching a library book somebody else touched a day or two ago? The risk of surface contamination is dubious in the first place, not to mention libraries have a sad tendency to be lightly trafficked. Meanwhile grocery stores are packed and nobody leaves the pizza box they get delivered laying around for three days before touching it.
Checking out a library book specifically is almost certainly non-essential. But I'm sure there are lots of people who are being forced to leave their houses for various reasons (including earning money to eat) who really do have this level of concern about getting infected.
I understand that some people have no choice but to leave their homes, but as you say, getting a library book is almost certainly non-essential. It doesn't make sense that somebody with such a high level of concern would be spending more time in public than was strictly required.
60 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadWhat are these public libraries that are even still open? My city's libraries have been closed for physical books since March.
You can quarantine them for a few days after checking them out, if you like. Just like mail. Or pizza deliveries.
"Let me spell it for you: don't microwave your books!" - and based on just an isolated incident. By writing an article about this they may create an impression that this is a popular trend whereas it's not.
In fact, I imagine more people would actually try to microwave their books after reading this article.
I once used two razors and a piece of wire plugged into the 220V outlet to boil some water.
A) Why?
B) Honestly that's pretty cool. Even if this is the only answer to A, this is worth being proud of.
No, this wasn't a particularly bright idea. However, someone
A) Was checking out books from the library. In my opinion, this should always be encouraged, with the possible exception of present events.
B) Was trying to protect themselves/their family. Maybe we understand that this is a bad idea, but it was done as an attempt to help.
B rephrased what jasonjayr said, so sorry about that.
"Unlikely" is certainly true, but different people have different risk tolerances. And if it were really as simple as microwaving the book, this would be pretty reasonable!
The virus needs to settle in the airways to reach the level of infection.
I understand people's reaction, it's hard to sort all the messages from the media & health authorities, but it's still sad that so many have seemingly abandoned common sense.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> On Jan 22, Guangfa Wang, a member of the national expert panel on pneumonia, reported that he was infected by 2019-nCoV during the inspection in Wuhan.2
> He wore an N95 mask but did not wear anything to protect his eyes. Several days before the onset of pneumonia, Wang complained of redness of the eyes. Unprotected exposure of the eyes to 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan Fever Clinic might have allowed the virus to infect the body.2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasolacrimal_duct
That's why you need to wash your hands. To protect your eyes.
At this point animal studies are necessary to determine whether there is significant infection through items or not. Given the spread of the virus in the world, I think it is unlikely at this point, though (it would've been noticed if significant).
I'm open to proof or hints of proof in that direction, I just don't see it ATM, based on what I've read on contagion events.
"The presence of 2019-nCoV in patients’ saliva suggests the possibility of salivary gland infection.... Further studies are required"
Just wait. 2 hours ought to do it, so just don't touch them the day they're returned and then proceed as normal.
Also the odds of a virus infecting you seem very minimal even if you handle a book with live virus on it.
Our local library is holding returned items in isolation for 72 hrs before returning them to general circulation, which seems to be in line with what I've seen most experts recommend currently.
And not everyone is in a position to independently evaluate from first principles what precautions are appropriate and which are insufficient, unhelpful, or excessive.
[0] https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/can_the_new_type_of_coronavirus_b...
However, the drop is nonlinear and indeed after 2 hours half of the viruses will be inactive.
That protects you from viruses left on the book by the prior person who checked it out.
But what about viruses left on the book by people who used the book at the library but did not check it out?
If you are actually worried about possible transmission via library books, you would need to do your own quarantine of the book after you check it out before you start reading it.
Edit: Note that I'm not saying risk of virus transmission via library books is something you actually need to care about. But some people obviously do think it is a risk, or we wouldn't be reading a story about people microwaving library books.
The library is trying to address those (possibly irrational) fears by pointing out that they quarantine the books when they are returned.
All I'm saying is that if someone fears (however irrationally) getting a virus from library books, then they are probably going to want the quarantine to come between them checking out the book and them starting to read the book.
Edit: Do the downvoters earnestly believe the risk of going out in public at all doesn't dwarf the risk of touching a library book somebody else touched a day or two ago? The risk of surface contamination is dubious in the first place, not to mention libraries have a sad tendency to be lightly trafficked. Meanwhile grocery stores are packed and nobody leaves the pizza box they get delivered laying around for three days before touching it.
I second the request for a film if someone decides to do it.