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
Sid said:
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.
rgag12 said:
I didn't lay out any facts, I stated what I thought I knew.
I admit that I was wrong about it being an influenza strain. But I am not backing down from the fact that other viruses from this virus family behave similarly to the flu. Which is why many people believe it will die slow down in summer. That was the point I was trying to make. You and Bo both know this
Is it more contagious or is it ust that we haven't (yet?) built up a natural immunity so its spreading faster than non-novel strains?Quote:
this seems a lot more contagious than previous coronaviruses
Rapier108 said:
The common cold is caused by rhinoviruses and coronaviruses, the former being the more common.
The flu/influenza is a different family of viruses.
How's it doing in the southern hemisphere?Bo Darville said:
We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.
k2aggie07 said:
Right, if the primary vector is droplet transmission colder and drier weather favors transmission. As temperature and humidity increase, the droplets are less stable - they get more water from the air, get larger, and fall.
On the other hand some viruses spread primarily by direct contact (handshakes, infected surfaces).
Transmission through the air is split between large droplets (coughs and sneezes) and small particles (simply by breathing - aerosols). Heat and humidity reduce both. Flu does all three (large droplet, aerosols, contact).
It's not clear even with the diseases we know well what the actual relative importance of each of these methods is. There's recent research that suggests aerosols are more important in Influenza A than we might have previously thought.
No one really knows for sure what the primary route is for this virus. The big SARS outbreak began a bit late in "flu season" and ended by March. It could well be that temperature was a big part of that.
Some of the earlier stuff was talking about a fecal oral route. :/
You guys need to go back and read at least the last 10-15 pages.tysker said:Is it more contagious or is it ust that we haven't (yet?) built up a natural immunity so its spreading faster than non-novel strains?Quote:
this seems a lot more contagious than previous coronaviruses
Quote:
Coronavirus up to 20 times more likely than Sars to bind to human cells, study suggests
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3051124/coronavirus-20-times-more-likely-sars-bind-human-cells-study
The deadly new coronavirus is up to 20 times more likely to bind to human cell receptors and cause infection than severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), a new study by researchers at the University of Texas at Austin has found.
The novel coronavirus and Sars share the same functional host-cell receptor, called angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).
The report, published on the website bioRxiv on Saturday, said the new coronavirus had around 10 to 20-fold higher affinity the degree to which a substance tends to combine with another for human ACE2 compared with Sars.
But the researchers added that further studies were needed to explore the human host-cell receptor's role in helping the new virus to spread from person to person.
The new study found that although the novel coronavirus' receptor-binding domain (RBD) had a relatively similar structure to that of Sars, it did not have appreciable binding to three published Sars RBD-specific monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which are copies of one type of antibody used to neutralise pathogens.
TurkeyBaconLeg said: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...Bo Darville said:
We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.
Fair enough.tysker said:
I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I dont really have a clue what any of that really means.
I wouldn't do an Asian or European cruise, but I'd go on one out of Galveston.Maverick06 said:
Have a family cruise set to embark from Galveston March 8 visiting Mexico and Belize. I'm having serious doubts on whether to go or cancel and lose the payments. I think Carnivals response is piss poor in that they are only screening passengers that have recently traveled from China, Hong Kong or Macau. Meanwhile this thing is global. Thoughts?
Which is why it seems slightly disingenuous to say this one is "more contagious." It may be true but its not certain until we get a better understanding and, unfortunately, more people are infected.k2aggie07 said:
No one really knows. It could also seem to be more contagious because people simply weren't practicing normal habits that they might if something is going around. The spread was way worse in Hubei than outside in the rest of China.
On the other hand, it does seem to get a foothold quickly. The "how contagious is it" is kind of difficult, because the net result we observe isn't - if I put one virus in your nose, what are the odds you get sick. It's a combination of that plus how long people have asymptomatic transmission, how long the incubation period is, and how its transmission combines with people's habits and environments.
Maverick06 said:
Have a family cruise set to embark from Galveston March 8 visiting Mexico and Belize. I'm having serious doubts on whether to go or cancel and lose the payments. I think Carnivals response is piss poor in that they are only screening passengers that have recently traveled from China, Hong Kong or Macau. Meanwhile this thing is global. Thoughts?
yukmonkey said:How's it doing in the southern hemisphere?Bo Darville said:
We've seen no proof that this virus is susceptible to warm or humid weather. Not all viruses are.
That's still early enough before things would really blow up here if they ever do. A cruise in April - May may be a different story.Maverick06 said:
Have a family cruise set to embark from Galveston March 8 visiting Mexico and Belize. I'm having serious doubts on whether to go or cancel and lose the payments. I think Carnivals response is piss poor in that they are only screening passengers that have recently traveled from China, Hong Kong or Macau. Meanwhile this thing is global. Thoughts?
Quote:
The article assumes that that a pandemic will occur at some point and that Wave 1 will impact us, wherever we live, in the coming weeks and months. We don't know how severe a COVID-19 pandemic will be. We won't know for sure until we see spread in other countries that document the spread and the illness. It takes two scenarios from the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza.
Scenario one: clinical severity is low
The majority of cases are likely to experience mild to moderate clinical features. People in at-risk groups may experience more severe illness. Strategies to support at-risk groups may be required (e.g. aged care, infants, remote communities). At the peak of the pandemic, and increasingly when transmissibility is higher, primary care and hospital services are likely to be stretched to coping capacity in areas associated with respiratory illness and acute care. The level of impact on the community may be similar to severe seasonal influenza or the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.
Scenario two: clinical severity is moderate
Young healthy people and people in at-risk groups may experience severe illness. The number of people presenting for medical care is likely to be higher than for severe seasonal influenza and primary care and hospital services will be under severe pressure, particularly in areas associated with respiratory illness and acute care. Non-urgent procedures and activities will need to be scaled back. Surge staffing and alternate models of clinical care, such as flu clinics may need to be employed to cope with increased demands for healthcare. Pressure on health services will be more intense, rise more quickly and peak earlier as the transmissibility of the disease increases. Healthcare staff may themselves be ill or have to care for ill family members, further exacerbating pressures on healthcare providers.
TexasAggie_02 said:https://msphere.asm.org/content/4/5/e00474-19BowSowy said: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.Nuclear Scramjet said:BowSowy said: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 wellNuclear 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.
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.
AHR = Antiseptic Hand Rubbing (hand sanitizer)
AHW = Antiseptic Hand Washing (plain water, no soap)
IAV = Influenza A Virus
EBD = Ethanol Based DisinfectantQuote:
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 salineQuote:
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.
