StudioSaint said

I think that would be why they studied different latitudes around the world and mentioned they saw no significant link between latitude change and spread rate change. There's a direct link between latitude and the level of surface UV exposure. Weather also plays a significant factor in surface UV exposure levels.

However, even in the most UV exposed areas of the planet, buildings and anything that creates shade, blocks those UV rays. A lot of glass also blocks UV rays. UV rays have to come into direct contact with the virus to destroy it.

If someone is exposed to the virus while indoors or in the shade, they will not be protected by UV rays because they and the virus are not being bombarded by UV rays at the time of exposure.

This virus does not really spread by drifting from person to person in the outdoor air or on surfaces. It doesn't drift in the air to travel from a store, then to a restaurant, then to a workplace, then to a theater, then to a concert, then to the airport, and then to all other public gathering points. Even a lot of surfaces are protected from UV exposure when being moved outside.

Every package we get comes inside another package. The outer package protects the inside of the package from UV exposure. The inner package was packed inside the outer package while indoors and not exposed to UV. Most of us open those packages inside, where there is no UV exposure. Most product packing never has direct contact with the sun's UV rays.

There's no doubting that UV rays destroys the virus. What's doubtful is that infections occur in the presence of UV rays at a significant enough rate to significantly slow the spread of the virus.

The virus is mostly carried from one group of people to another by an infected person. It's inside the infected person and protected from the sun's UV rays as that person moves through areas exposed to UV. The infected person's body protects the virus from UV rays as the infected person spreads the virus from from a store, then to a restaurant, then to a workplace, then to a theater, then to a concert, then to the airport, and then to all other public gathering points.

Most of our social interactions take place indoors and other situations in which there is little to no UV exposure. In those situations, the surface UV levels from the sun are not a factor is slowing the spread of the virus.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...tter&utm_source=reddit.com#Echobox=1588971997

Click to expand...

From that article:

​

​

It got going during their summer into early fall. They've done very little to mitigate. San Paulo issued a stay at home order over a month ago, but it has mostly been ignored because of their president has been saying it's no big deal. I have two dear friends who live in the state of San Paulo, so I've been following it closely. Their rate of spread hasn't changed. The sheer number of cases has dramatically surged, but that's due more to natural exponential growth in the spread and the lack of mitigation.


I think this is reckless speculation that creates a false sense of security that is not supported by all of the scientific evidence and studies to date. It is still very much an unproven whether or not the summer season alone significantly slows the spread of the virus.

There is ample real world examples that cast serious doubt on the belief that summer UV slows the spread of the virus. UV exposure only destroys the virus when the virus is exposed to UV. Until it's proven, that most exposures to the virus also occur while being exposed to the sun's UV rays, then it's merely an assumption that summer alone will make us significantly safer. There is ample evidence to suggest that it's a questionable assumption

Click to expand...