C@LAg said:

---

what a strange post, claiming that Rush Limbaugh is an expert on anything viral.
and that the Medal of Freedom grants any authority as well.
very weird.

---

Rush is listened to by a lot of people and chimed in. I posted a snarky, but relevant thing. You posted "herp derp but Obama".

HowdyTAMU said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Really

---

Who would have thought to test a dog anyway?

---

The dog tester

flakrat said:

---

daggertx said:

---

CDC has been a failure. Woman had the virus for 7 days in California but the CDC did not test because "she had not been to china". So guess what? None of the doctors or nurses that have been caring for her have taking ANY precautions.....

WE are just like China. Trying to prevent panic by slow rolling the data or just pure incompetence? Or both?

---

Why is this the responsibility of the CDC? I would think the primary care Dr would be the one to determine what, if any, tests to run?

---

UC Davis immediately requested a test to be run due to the symptoms exhibited by the patient once she was transferred.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/contenthub/novel-coronavirus-patient-and-precautions-at-uc-davis-medical-center/2020/02

The initial test kits sent across the country by the CDC a couple of weeks ago were flawed. Until the change in direction issued by the CDC/FDA earlier today, the CDC would be the only entity that could run the test for the hospital. The patient did not meet the strict criteria set by the CDC; several days passed before the CDC agreed to test the patient.

HowdyTAMU said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Really

---

Who would have thought to test a dog anyway?

---

Might have done it just out of curiosity to see if the rumors that animals can get the virus are accurate.

Other reports say the test might be showing weak positive because the dog has the virus in its nose and mouth, but is not actually infected. Basically it picked up virus particles that the owner expelled into the air.

Edit: Grammar Fix

CowtownEng said:

---

flakrat said:

---

daggertx said:

---

CDC has been a failure. Woman had the virus for 7 days in California but the CDC did not test because "she had not been to china". So guess what? None of the doctors or nurses that have been caring for her have taking ANY precautions.....

WE are just like China. Trying to prevent panic by slow rolling the data or just pure incompetence? Or both?

---

Why is this the responsibility of the CDC? I would think the primary care Dr would be the one to determine what, if any, tests to run?

---

UC Davis immediately requested a test to be run due to the symptoms exhibited by the patient once she was transferred.

https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-news/contenthub/novel-coronavirus-patient-and-precautions-at-uc-davis-medical-center/2020/02

The initial test kits sent across the country by the CDC a couple of weeks ago were flawed. Until the change in direction issued by the CDC/FDA earlier today, the CDC would be the only entity that could run the test for the hospital. The patient did not meet the strict criteria set by the CDC; several days passed before the CDC agreed to test the patient.

---

They used droplet ppe protocol and upgraded to airborne ppe only after the COVID confirmation. According to China droplet ppe didn't prevent staff transmissions.

That's interesting. The CDC does detail explicit PPE requirements for COVID-19 patients which covers airborne (respirator, etc.). I wonder why the hospital wouldnt use the CDC recommended PPE if they assumed the patient was infected with the virus.

Rapier108 said:

---

HowdyTAMU said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Really

---

Who would have thought to test a dog anyway?

---

Might have done it just out of curiosity to see if the rumors that animals can get the virus.

Other reports say the test might be showing weak positive because the dog has the virus in its nose and mouth, but it not actually infected. Basically it picked up virus particles that the owner expelled into the air.

---

Early on, the Chinese were arguing with the WHO about possible transmission between mammals (pets) and humans. They must be testing those claims.

ETA: Sorry, didn't see your reply Rapier. Checked to make sure I wasn't misremembering and clicked on the post with the tweet.

From the item linked in the tweet -

Quote:

---

4 patients were exposed to the novel 2019 coronavirus through work as medical professionals. Two were male and the age range was 30 to 36 years. Among 3 of the patients, fever, cough, or both occurred at onset. One patient was initially asymptomatic and underwent thin-section CT due to exposure to infected patients. All patients had positive RT-PCR test results and CT imaging showed ground-glass opacification or mixed ground-glass opacification and consolidation. The severity of disease was mild to moderate.

Antiviral treatment (75 mg of oseltamivir taken orally every 12 hours) was provided for the 4 patients. For 3 of the patients, all clinical symptoms and CT imaging abnormalities had resolved. The CT imaging for the fourth patient showed delicate patches of ground-glass opacity. All 4 patients had 2 consecutive negative RT-PCR test results. The time from symptom onset to recovery ranged from 12 to 32 days.
After hospital discharge or discontinuation of quarantine, the patients were asked to continue the quarantine protocol at home for 5 days. The RT-PCR tests were repeated 5 to 13 days later and all were positive. All patients had 3 repeat RT-PCR tests performed over the next 4 to 5 days and all were positive. An additional RT-PCR test was performed using a kit from a different manufacturer and the results were also positive for all patients. The patients continued to be asymptomatic by clinician examination and chest CT findings showed no change from previous images. They did not report contact with any person with respiratory symptoms. No family member was infected.

Four patients with COVID-19 who met criteria for hospital discharge or discontinuation of quarantine in China (absence of clinical symptoms and radiological abnormalities and 2 negative RT-PCR test results) had positive RT-PCR test results 5 to 13 days later. These findings suggest that at least a proportion of recovered patients still may be virus carriers. Although no family members were infected, all reported patients were medical professionals and took special care during home quarantine. Current criteria for hospital discharge or discontinuation of quarantine and continued patient management may need to be reevaluated. Although false-negative RT-PCR test results could have occurred as suggested by a previous study,6 2 consecutively negative RT-PCR test results plus evidence from clinical characteristics and chest CT findings suggested that the 4 patients qualified for hospital discharge or discontinuation of quarantine.

The study was limited to a small number of patients with mild or moderate infection. Further studies should follow up patients who are not health care professionals and who have more severe infection after hospital discharge or discontinuation of quarantine. Longitudinal studies on a larger cohort would help to understand the prognosis of the disease.

---

C@LAg said:

---

Mr.Infectious said:

---

---

they appear to have also run out of commas.

---

I mean, she does have crazy eyes. She admits it herself.

Quote:

---

These findings suggest that at least a proportion of recovered patients still may be virus carriers.

---

So until we have a cure and or vaccine, what happens if we find that people carry/spread the virus despite appearing healthy? Modern day leper colonies?

Hoping someone with more medical knowledge can help me:

What does it mean if this is a virus that you never really get over, like HIV?

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

C@LAg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

queso1 said:

---

Sounds like a good way to develop an autoimmune disease

---

Explain

---

washing yourself and sanitizing yourself too much can cause imbalances and autoimmune issues.

https://www.piedmont.org/living-better/too-much-hand-washing-can-make-you-sick

https://fortune.com/2018/06/12/washing-your-hands-too-much-bad/

---

I have an autoimmune disease. I played in the dirt as a child. mine is likely genetics.

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

---

But hand sanitizer is good for situations where you can't wash. You're right that it shouldn't be used to replace hand washing, but those who are saying it's "useless" are off base as well

My take so far...

The Stock Market is reacting to the economic impact of the virus causing temporary supply shortages and business closures more than anything.

The unknown factor of this virus and how contagious it is makes the market people wonder if these shortages will last longer than anticipated.

All of this will come back once the virus is eventually contained or has run its course. The hotter spring and summer temps are anticipated to cause the virus to go dormant (like the flu) and crop back up next winter.

I expect that since the virus is so contagious that it will eventually make its way all over the USA.

The bad thing about this will not necessarily be getting sick with the virus (because most all of us will survive), Its the panic and run on food and supplies that will cause temporary shortages and uncertainty.

Today's partial #s without Italy. They plan to release their #s at 17:00 GMT. Probably gonna be 200 at least if I had to guess.



And today we will be over 1,250 conservatively guessing.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

---

Aren't there two types of hand sanitizer, regular and anti-microbial? Which were they using?

BowSowy said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

---

But hand sanitizer is good for situations where you can't wash. You're right that it shouldn't be used to replace hand washing, but those who are saying it's "useless" are off base as well

---

When I say it was better than nothing, the difference was almost negligible. You're better off taking a water bottle and then scrubbing your hands with slowly pouring it over them. Hand sanitizer by itself does almost nothing. The whole thing is a scam. The black light showing how much bacteria was left proved it's practically worthless.

57 STATES! said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

57 STATES! said:

---

Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh says the coronavirus is actually the common cold and a conspiracy to hurt Trump.

---

Nobel Prize Winner says "der... I brought world peace through hope and change."

---

What a strange thing to post. You are doing a fake quote and not addressing a real quote.

Very weird.

---

What real quote?

stetson said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

---

Aren't there two types of hand sanitizer, regular and anti-microbial? Which were they using?

---

I don't expect the results will be too different because most people don't use it correctly. Even then, it's not that big.

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

BowSowy said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

---

But hand sanitizer is good for situations where you can't wash. You're right that it shouldn't be used to replace hand washing, but those who are saying it's "useless" are off base as well

---

When I say it was better than nothing, the difference was almost negligible. You're better off taking a water bottle and then scrubbing your hands with slowly pouring it over them. Hand sanitizer by itself does almost nothing. The whole thing is a scam. The black light showing how much bacteria was left proved it's practically worthless.

---

This just doesn't jive with me. Do you have some sort of source other than your own anecdotal experience? I have my own anecdotal evidence that is counter to what you're talking about so I'd like to see some sort of source saying hand sanitizer use is basically no better than doing nothing.

https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-sanitizer.html
Here's the lowdown on hand sanitizers with plenty of footnotes to dig into.

Of course, this is put out by the CDC, so it's either reasonable advice or a plot of the Illuminati depending on your point of view.

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

The bad thing about this will not necessarily be getting sick with the virus (because most all of us will survive), Its the panic and run on food and supplies that will cause temporary shortages and uncertainty.

---

Which is unfortunate because it doesn't need to happen. Nobody freaks out in November because flu season is beginning and people are starting to get infected and pass it around. Imagine if we had the news, numerous twitter users, and texags users tracking every single flu case.

This thing is going to die down in warmer months and then crop back up in winter again. People won't panic as much when that happens because someone will say they have a vaccine, which like the common flu won't protect you fully and will still get millions infected. Eventually nobody will track this flu virus at all and by then millions upon millions will get it every year and many more will die every year. It will become a normal part of life.

Everyone's reaction to this thing is crazy. I am very tempted to utter the 4 words that trigger so many snowflakes on this thread but I won't because it's Friday.

We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.

BowSowy said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

BowSowy said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Nuclear Scramjet said:

---

Tx-Ag2010 said:

---

Why do people keep saying hand sanitizer is useless... I'm sure it's not quite as effective as dunking your hands in boiling soapy water for 60 seconds but from what I understand it still kills viruses.

---

Hand sanitizer is less effective than a 5 second hand rub with just water. It is that useless.

---

Do you have a link? Is that for soiled hands or mostly clean hands? This just seems counter intuitive.

---

Any first aid class will tell you this and do an experiment. What removes disease is friction combined with soap. They even did a test with a benign bacteria. 20 second soap scrub, 5 second water rinse and scrub, hand sanitizer, and nothing. The results always were 20 second scrub was by the best, then the water rinse, then hand sanitizer, and then nothing. Hand sanitizer is slightly better than doing nothing but your hands will still be covered after using it.

---

But hand sanitizer is good for situations where you can't wash. You're right that it shouldn't be used to replace hand washing, but those who are saying it's "useless" are off base as well

---

When I say it was better than nothing, the difference was almost negligible. You're better off taking a water bottle and then scrubbing your hands with slowly pouring it over them. Hand sanitizer by itself does almost nothing. The whole thing is a scam. The black light showing how much bacteria was left proved it's practically worthless.

---

This just doesn't jive with me. Do you have some sort of source other than your own anecdotal experience? I have my own anecdotal evidence that is counter to what you're talking about so I'd like to see some sort of source saying hand sanitizer use is basically no better than doing nothing.

---

https://msphere.asm.org/content/4/5/e00474-19

AHR = Antiseptic Hand Rubbing (hand sanitizer)

AHW = Antiseptic Hand Washing (plain water, no soap)

IAV = Influenza A Virus

EBD = Ethanol Based Disinfectant

Quote:

---

The clinical analysis showed that although IAV in saline was completely inactivated by AHR using EBD within 30 s, IAV in all mucus samples remained active, even after AHR for 120 s, and was completely inactivated by AHR within 240 s. The log reduction of IAV in mucus was significantly lower than that in saline after AHR for 30, 60, and 120 s (i.e., the IAV survival ratio in mucus was significantly higher than that in saline). The efficacy of AHR was also examined after allowing the saline and mucus samples to dry completely after placing them on the fingers. IAV was inactivated rapidly by AHR within 30 s in both dried mucus samples and dried saline. Furthermore, IAV was inactivated rapidly by AHW within 30 s under all conditions (in both undried and dried mucus samples and undried and dried saline

---

Quote:

---

First, regarding the AHW regimens in this study, handwashing was practiced using running water only, without using plain or antiseptic soap. These AHW regimens were expected to have a lower pathogen inactivation effect compared to that of AHW regimens using plain or antiseptic soap. However, IAV on the fingers was completely inactivated within 30 s under all AHW conditions, showing a good IAV inactivation effect of AHW in this study.

---

TLDR: Ethanol works in 30s seconds on flu in saline. But in mucus, it can take 2-4 mins. Washing hands with nothing but water worked in 30 seconds in saline or mucus.

rgag12 said:

---

TurkeyBaconLeg said:

---

Everyone's reaction to this thing is crazy. I am very tempted to utter the 4 words that trigger so many snowflakes on this thread but I won't because it's Friday.

---

---

Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo?

Bo Darville said:

---

We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.

---

We haven't seen any evidence that it isn't. The fact that it's from the flu family indicates it's likely

Water or soap and water remove germs and dirt. Mechanical scrubbing is a big part of this. Hand sanitizer doesn't remove them (no washing away), it kills germs. So only sanitizer with high alcohol content (like 60-70%) is effective for some things like viruses. Most hand sanitizers do not have this much alcohol, and even then, if you don't use enough it is simply ineffective because the alcohol takes time to kill things. I linked this one, here it is one more time.

Water is better than hand sanitizer. Hand sanitizer is better than nothing.

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2019/09/study-washing-your-hands-even-without-soap-is-more-effective-than-hand-sanitizers-for-flu-prevention/

rgag12 said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.

---

We haven't seen any evidence that it isn't. The fact that it's from the flu family indicates it's likely

---

It's not from the flu family in any way. What now, "fact" man?

Why do you think that coronavirus is in the same family as influenza?

Bo Darville said:

---

We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.

---

The proof as I understand it is because this is a respiratory disease and how it is transmitted. Warmer weather tends to slow down these types of illnesses. Like the flu...