Quoting from the discussion section of this paper:<p>"Such data, obtained from experimental animal models, combined with the aerosol decay rates determined in this study, would suggest that filovirus, at infectious levels, may remain a potential aerosol
threat for at least one and a half hours. Epidemiological
evidence, however, would suggest that during outbreaks,
filoviruses are rarely transmitted by the airborne route."<p>A bit disconcerting.<p>Let's hope that the "epidemiological" evidence is again borne out.
HTML version: <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04778.x/full" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010....</a><p>In case it's not clear why this is on HN's front page, there are simultaneous outbreaks of Ebola and Marburg in Africa right now; this paper discusses their ability to live on surfaces, something not widely understood in the current Ebola outbreak but with huge implications.
Am I reading this correctly in that higher temperatures reduced survivability? Anyone in a position to ease my mind about dust inside computer equipment from isolation wards?