So, I read the paper (and a few associated papers)...
It's the type of journal report where it is only an exercise in pulling literature references to other papers to compile the data (no experiments). In a table, they reference the persistence at various temperatures and surfaces reported.
Room temperature persistence across MERS, SARS, human coronovirus (and a few others) vary wildly. For instance:
SARS : 1h to 2d on a disposable gown (depending on the amount deposited)
SARS : 4d on glass, 5d on metal, 4d on wood
etc..
But if you actually pull some of those reports, what you see is that while there is some amount of infectious agent, there's almost a 1x reduction in the first day, and at the limit of detection at 5 days (on teflon, PVC, ceramic, glass, rubber, stainless steel).
So, 9d is a total outlier in the literature, and even at several days out the reduction in infectious agent is significant. It's there, but diminished. Importantly, this is different from the normal influenza virus which survives only a matter of hours in droplets and surfaces. A different beast, for sure.