Does the coronavirus ‘linger in the air’ long enough be dangerous? Why we can’t answer that question.

d b e f b c bf ac large x ap wide f c d cbbbd d s c
Credit: Kin Cheung/Associated Press

Scientists are debating a key aspect of the coronavirus that causes covid-19: whether the virus lingers in the air for long enough and in a great enough quantity for airborne transmission to be a common source of infection. It seems like a simple enough question, but it’s actually posing quite a challenge to researchers.

The new coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, infects the body primarily through a person’s respiratory tract.

Every exhalation contains large and small particles of moisture. Larger particles, or droplets, can only travel a short distance before they hit the ground. Smaller particles, however, can float in the air for much longer before they fall or dry up. …

We know for sure that SARS-CoV-2 spreads easily through larger droplets—that’s why we’ve spent the last three months desperately trying to stay at least six feet apart from one another. Past that point, experts generally agree that the risk of catching the virus through droplets is significantly much lower. But if the coronavirus can be routinely transmitted through aerosols, then these precautions are far too meager.

While knowing that the virus isn’t airborne wouldn’t change the need for physical distancing, it might provide some added margin for error as we start to reopen parts of society.

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-27-2026-11_47_30-AM-2
FDA’s expedited drug reviews are hailed in some quarters but other approval practices are problematic
Farmers can talk to plants
Farmers are a major source of misinformation—about farming
Screenshot-2026-05-01-at-1.29.41-PM
Viewpoint: What happens when whole grains meet modern food manufacturing? Labels don’t tell the whole story.
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-13-2026-02_20_22-PM
Viewpoint: Misinformation infodemic? Why assessing evidence is so challenging 
S
As vaccine rejectionism spreads, measles may be taking a more dangerous turn
Screenshot 2026-05-06 at 2.19
Vaccine shootout at the CDC 
What explains Homo sapiens’ huge brains? Ancient climate change played a role
Viewpoint: Internal White House documents detail administration’s strategy to undermine climate science
Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-2.26.27-PM
Viewpoint — Food-fear world: The latest activist scientists campaign: Cancer-causing additives
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-11_28_04-AM-2
‘Conflict entrepreneurs’ are driving disinformation and shaping public opinion
ChatGPT-Image-May-6-2026-03_41_05-PM
‘Protecting the integrity of science’: Kennedy’s FDA blocks release of taxpayer-funded studies finding COVID and shingles vaccines safe
bigstock opioids on chalkboard with rol
GLP podcast: 'Safe injection sites': enabling drug addiction or saving lives?
Screenshot-2026-05-06-at-2.07.43-PM
Manufacturing a conspiracy: The timeline of how  the White House embraced the fringe claim that scientists are being mysteriously murdered
circular-bioeconomy-should-focus-on-sustainable-wellbeing
GLP podcast: What's wrong with 'doomsday' environmentalism? It's false.

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.