Page 53 of 73 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast
Results 1,561 to 1,590 of 2172

Thread: Disease and pandemics thread (because it's science)

  1. #1561
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,156
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Trebuchet is correct: the sensation of having a blocked nose. A tampon is a blockage. Tamponade is the state of being blocked. I've never seen the expression used for anything other than an object you stick up someone's nose to stop bleeding, but sometimes these odd phrases appear when authors are writing English as a second language.

    Grant Hutchison
    In American English it has another very common meeting.
    As above, so below

  2. #1562
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    But what I don't understand is, if there is a virus on a food, and you eat it, will that not contact mucous membranes on its way down the throat?
    You've got to think about how this works from the virus's point of view. What it "wants" is for a tiny gobbet of secretion, containing maybe a thousand fresh virions, to land on a mucous membrane. The water in this little droplet evaporates quickly, and all the virions find themselves sitting on a nice permeable surface with the circulatory system just a few tens of microns away.
    But what it "finds" is that this droplet has settled on a piece of food, many orders of magnitude larger than the droplet itself. Time goes by, some virions lose function in a time-related, exponential way, and then you eat the food. You chew it, mixing the tiny droplet with its reduced virion complement into the relatively huge bulk of the food, and then you swallow it, gliding it smoothly past mucous membranes that are well lubricated with a film of water and mucus. The virus is reduced in infectivity by time, isolated from the surface it wants to infect by mixing with the food bolus, and any virions that come close to the mucous membrane are never brought into contact with it by evaporation. It's an infectivity disaster for any virus that wants to land on a mucous membrane.
    Whereas gut viruses "want" to be inside the food bolus to protect them from stomach acid, and are happy to arrive inside a big tube that is actively absorbing nutrients via specialized receptors and transporters that the virus has an affinity for.

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #1563
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    In American English it has another very common meeting.
    I'm guessing that's a typo for "meaning", and you're referring to the coyly designated "feminine hygiene product" that has the same name in British English?
    (But, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Americans thought it was a breakfast cereal, a small mammal, or an offensively racist epithet for Belgians.)

    Grant Hutchison

  4. #1564
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,156
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I'm guessing that's a typo for "meaning", and you're referring to the coyly designated "feminine hygiene product" that has the same name in British English?
    (But, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Americans thought it was a breakfast cereal, a small mammal, or an offensively racist epithet for Belgians.)
    Yes, the feminine hygiene product is what I meant. I have heard that of course, but never heard it used for a plug to stop nose bleeding.
    As above, so below

  5. #1565
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    14,156
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    It certainly hasn't disappeared in medicine. Did it ever exist in common parlance?

    Grant Hutchison
    I would guess that perhaps it has never really existed in common parlance. I am aware technically of the difference, but not being a medical professional, I tend to use "symptoms" refer to both. Partly because I (and probably others) don't tend to think of the "signs" and "reflexes" that medical professionals use.
    As above, so below

  6. #1566
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    We still have to eat!
    I guess the risk of infection depends on the count of human contacts with the food item(s) as it is prepared. Certain cooking techniques (eg: flame grilled) probably doesn't help the virus' lipid coating survival likelihood .. but the container the final product goes into, would be a different matter, I guess.
    The bottom line is, you have to trust that the food preparers are being careful not to infect the food after it is cooked. Of course we always have to count on them doing that, but the stakes have gotten a lot higher. The question we will continuously ask ourselves for the next year is, is such-and-such a behavior worth the risk? But the issue is, it's hard to get good information about what the risk is, when all the focus is on getting our hands infected and then touching our face. (I see for the first time now there is starting to be language about touching the mouth with our hands, that was never in the language that was getting reported.)
    I personally think stating that one cannot not get COVID-19 from eating food, must be incorrect .. given that the human body already contains many potentially dangerous viruses(?)
    Yes, I don't think it's correct, they must be thinking of not getting it from inside the food, but of course that's a completely different matter and was never the question.

  7. #1567
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You've got to think about how this works from the virus's point of view. What it "wants" is for a tiny gobbet of secretion, containing maybe a thousand fresh virions, to land on a mucous membrane. The water in this little droplet evaporates quickly, and all the virions find themselves sitting on a nice permeable surface with the circulatory system just a few tens of microns away.
    But what it "finds" is that this droplet has settled on a piece of food, many orders of magnitude larger than the droplet itself. Time goes by, some virions lose function in a time-related, exponential way, and then you eat the food. You chew it, mixing the tiny droplet with its reduced virion complement into the relatively huge bulk of the food, and then you swallow it, gliding it smoothly past mucous membranes that are well lubricated with a film of water and mucus. The virus is reduced in infectivity by time, isolated from the surface it wants to infect by mixing with the food bolus, and any virions that come close to the mucous membrane are never brought into contact with it by evaporation. It's an infectivity disaster for any virus that wants to land on a mucous membrane.
    Whereas gut viruses "want" to be inside the food bolus to protect them from stomach acid, and are happy to arrive inside a big tube that is actively absorbing nutrients via specialized receptors and transporters that the virus has an affinity for.
    Yes, that certainly makes sense from the point of view of liking, or not liking, getting mixed into the food. I'm thinking more like, a food preparer gets a droplet on their glove, which is passed to the surface of the food. The person bites into the food, and typically there is the food that is bitten off by our teeth, but then there is also the food that comes into contact with our lips but does not encounter the teeth. Pretty much it's either the lips or the teeth, never both. So if the lips would be the mucous membrane of interest, then the chewing action would never come into play. But I grant you that you have to be unlucky to have it pass to the lips instead of getting bitten off.

  8. #1568
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    We still have to eat!
    I guess the risk of infection depends on the count of human contacts with the food item(s) as it is prepared. Certain cooking techniques (eg: flame grilled) probably doesn't help the virus' lipid coating survival likelihood .. but the container the final product goes into, would be a different matter, I guess.
    The bottom line is, you have to trust that the food preparers are being careful not to infect the food after it is cooked. Of course we always have to count on them doing that, but the stakes have gotten a lot higher. The question we will continuously ask ourselves for the next year is, is such-and-such a behavior worth the risk? But the issue is, it's hard to get good information about what the risk is. How are most people acquiring the illness? I still don't think we know.

  9. #1569
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    5,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The question we will continuously ask ourselves for the next year is, is such-and-such a behavior worth the risk?
    I think that is the big question with respect to the economic recovery. If there is a vaccine, or even a good treatment, service industries would likely bounce back relatively quickly.

    Without those, the risk of catching a disease that seems to kill randomly will weigh heavily on the decision to engage any business that isnít absolutely essential.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  10. #1570
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Yes, the feminine hygiene product is what I meant. I have heard that of course, but never heard it used for a plug to stop nose bleeding.
    Ah, I see the confusion. I was talking about medical usage of the specific phrase "nasal tampon", but didn't make that clear. I kind of mourned the invention of the nasal tampon, because there was an immense clinical and technical satisfaction to be had from packing a person's nose with ribbon gauze coated in a weird yellow gloop I now can't recall the name of.

    Grant Hutchison

  11. #1571
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    (I see for the first time now there is starting to be language about touching the mouth with our hands, that was never in the language that was getting reported.)
    You seem to be getting some odd messaging. I don't recognize that at all.

    CDC
    Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.

    WHO
    Avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth

    UK Government
    avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands

    Grant Hutchison

  12. #1572
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, that certainly makes sense from the point of view of liking, or not liking, getting mixed into the food. I'm thinking more like, a food preparer gets a droplet on their glove, which is passed to the surface of the food. The person bites into the food, and typically there is the food that is bitten off by our teeth, but then there is also the food that comes into contact with our lips but does not encounter the teeth. Pretty much it's either the lips or the teeth, never both. So if the lips would be the mucous membrane of interest, then the chewing action would never come into play. But I grant you that you have to be unlucky to have it pass to the lips instead of getting bitten off.
    Indeed. And it would have to be a fairly fresh droplet on fairly impervious food for it to make the transition to the lip successfully. And then it would need to survive the process of lip-licking that occurs after people touch food with their lips. The conditions on the lips are very different during eating than they are when an unnoticed smear of secretion is allowed to dry in situ.
    No doubt you can say it's still possible for an infective dose of virion to end up sitting on the lip mucosa, and I doubt if any virologist would disagree with that assertion. But the fact remains that epidemiological evidence for respiratory viruses being spread by food is very rare. And we should remember that the food industry already protects us, every day, from killer diseases which are adapted to travelling in food.

    Grant Hutchison

  13. #1573
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    I think that is the big question with respect to the economic recovery. If there is a vaccine, or even a good treatment, service industries would likely bounce back relatively quickly.

    Without those, the risk of catching a disease that seems to kill randomly will weigh heavily on the decision to engage any business that isn’t absolutely essential.
    Yes, and then the question is, can an economy function on only what is absolutely essential, or do the essential functions collapse without support from less essential ones? In other words, if everyone who does not perform an essential task loses their job and make claims against unemployment, and if people who do the essential jobs get sick and make claims against health insurance, does the whole system come crashing down? What is a sustainable economy in the presence of COVID-19? That may be as important a question as how do you avoid getting it.

  14. #1574
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    You seem to be getting some odd messaging. I don't recognize that at all.

    CDC
    Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.

    WHO
    Avoid touching eyes, nose and mouth

    UK Government
    avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands
    Yes, that is the language I am seeing when looking at those official websites. Probably they always said that, but it didn't get translated into the information being presented-- the messaging I was referring to was everything being reported on news outlets throughout the onset of the epidemic. I can't easily cite them, but dozens of times I thought to myself "what about the mouth?" as well as "what about inhaling it?".

  15. #1575
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Indeed. And it would have to be a fairly fresh droplet on fairly impervious food for it to make the transition to the lip successfully. And then it would need to survive the process of lip-licking that occurs after people touch food with their lips. The conditions on the lips are very different during eating than they are when an unnoticed smear of secretion is allowed to dry in situ.
    No doubt you can say it's still possible for an infective dose of virion to end up sitting on the lip mucosa, and I doubt if any virologist would disagree with that assertion. But the fact remains that epidemiological evidence for respiratory viruses being spread by food is very rare. And we should remember that the food industry already protects us, every day, from killer diseases which are adapted to travelling in food.
    Those are certainly all valid points, and I can't dispute any of them, I'm more referring to a lifetime of being told to avoid sharing food with someone who is sick with an illness that would not be considered faecal-oral. The common cold, for example. I think what you are saying is that is pretty much a myth, which would come as a pretty large surprise to most of the population of the US, who are always told not to share food or drinks with someone who has a cold, hence my surprise in being told that I can't get COVID-19 from food. Or even kiss them, and then wipe one's lips afterward. And then there's the question, despite all the valid points you just made, how hungry would you need to be before you'd eat the rest of an article of food that was half-bitten by someone you knew had COVID-19? It would be hard for me, given that lifetime of training, though I accept your argument that my training was most likely a misconception.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2020-Apr-07 at 02:10 PM.

  16. #1576
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Those are certainly all valid points, and I can't dispute any of them, I'm more referring to a lifetime of being told to avoid sharing food with someone who is sick with an illness that would not be considered faecal-oral. The common cold, for example. I think what you are saying is that is pretty much a myth, which would come as a pretty large surprise to most of the population of the US, who are always told not to share food or drinks with someone who has a cold, hence my surprise in being told that I can't get COVID-19 from food. Or even kiss them, and then wipe one's lips afterward. And then there's the question, despite all the valid points you just made, how hungry would you need to be before you'd eat the rest of an article of food that was half-bitten by someone you knew had COVID-19? It would be hard for me, given that lifetime of training, though I accept your argument that my training was most likely a misconception.
    But that training is based on the emotion disgust, triggered by any contaminated food for good survival reasons. If we decide to over-ride that, it is like petting snakes, learned behaviour.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #1577
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, and then the question is, can an economy function on only what is absolutely essential, or do the essential functions collapse without support from less essential ones? In other words, if everyone who does not perform an essential task loses their job and make claims against unemployment, and if people who do the essential jobs get sick and make claims against health insurance, does the whole system come crashing down? What is a sustainable economy in the presence of COVID-19? That may be as important a question as how do you avoid getting it.
    I am amused, if that is the right word, that my conclusion as a tiny business, is that three months is survivable, longer could be disastrous, is echoed by many much larger businesses. I think it will play out in big economies too, whatever the epidemic does. It had not occurred to me before the importance of quarters.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  18. #1578
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Those are certainly all valid points, and I can't dispute any of them, I'm more referring to a lifetime of being told to avoid sharing food with someone who is sick with an illness that would not be considered faecal-oral. The common cold, for example. I think what you are saying is that is pretty much a myth, which would come as a pretty large surprise to most of the population of the US, who are always told not to share food or drinks with someone who has a cold...
    Advice I don't think I've ever seen. The advice I'm familiar with is the sensible injunction not to share eating utensils, drink cups, crockery and so on--the sort of stuff that would be contaminated by the affected person's secretions. These objects that carry virus on their surface are referred to as "fomites" in the trade, and it's the fomites, not the food, that are the danger when it comes to respiratory viruses. For faecal-oral viruses, it's the fomites and the food.
    That said, "sharing food" could be intended to cover those situations where people fork stuff off another person's plate, offer them morsels from their own plate, or sip from someone else's wine glass. That seems to be more common in North America than the UK.

    Grant Hutchison

  19. #1579
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Advice I don't think I've ever seen. The advice I'm familiar with is the sensible injunction not to share eating utensils, drink cups, crockery and so on--the sort of stuff that would be contaminated by the affected person's secretions. These objects that carry virus on their surface are referred to as "fomites" in the trade, and it's the fomites, not the food, that are the danger when it comes to respiratory viruses. For faecal-oral viruses, it's the fomites and the food.
    That said, "sharing food" could be intended to cover those situations where people fork stuff off another person's plate, offer them morsels from their own plate, or sip from someone else's wine glass. That seems to be more common in North America than the UK.

    Grant Hutchison
    Off topic: my father was a twin and all his life wanted to share his plate. He was brought up in identical clothes and no doubt made to share. Both twins hated it and separated as soon as possible. But those habits die hard.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  20. #1580
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Those are certainly all valid points, and I can't dispute any of them, I'm more referring to a lifetime of being told to avoid sharing food with someone who is sick with an illness that would not be considered faecal-oral. The common cold, for example. I think what you are saying is that is pretty much a myth, which would come as a pretty large surprise to most of the population of the US, who are always told not to share food or drinks with someone who has a cold, hence my surprise in being told that I can't get COVID-19 from food. Or even kiss them, and then wipe one's lips afterward. And then there's the question, despite all the valid points you just made, how hungry would you need to be before you'd eat the rest of an article of food that was half-bitten by someone you knew had COVID-19? It would be hard for me, given that lifetime of training, though I accept your argument that my training was most likely a misconception.
    For all the reasons Grant has discussed, I bet the containers and wrapping are more risky than the food itself. I am quite worried about goods that are on display in supermarkets, with people pawing them and coughing and sneezing nearby. It's the containment exposed to the supermarket environment that is hazardous, not the food inside.

    Where possible (plastic bottles and metal cans) I am now dumping them in a basin of dilute bleach for ten minutes when I get home from shopping. Other items I spray with 80% isopropanol or an alcohol aerosol can.

    I have also been thinking when buying ahead, if it's non-perishable leave it in a spare room for a week before unpacking.

  21. #1581
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    That said, "sharing food" could be intended to cover those situations where people fork stuff off another person's plate, offer them morsels from their own plate, or sip from someone else's wine glass. That seems to be more common in North America than the UK.
    Yes, those are just the situations we are forcibly discouraged from in the US when in the presence of someone sick with a respiratory virus, I would say even more strongly than washing our hands and certainly we would never think to wear a mask. If a family member came down with a cold, you can be sure their food will be separated, and less often the others will be asked to increase handwashing, and there will be no masks anywhere. I doubt my household is unusual in this regard, so it's interesting to hear why that prioritization is probably askew.

  22. #1582
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    For all the reasons Grant has discussed, I bet the containers and wrapping are more risky than the food itself. I am quite worried about goods that are on display in supermarkets, with people pawing them and coughing and sneezing nearby. It's the containment exposed to the supermarket environment that is hazardous, not the food inside.
    Sure, the food inside is not an issue, it's more about takeout food that I asked. For normal supermarket food, I think we'd all be wise to wash the packaging or remove food from the packaging, and then wash our hands. But it doesn't sound like one needs to worry about biting into a fast-food hamburger, after the packaging has been discarded and the hands washed. In the US, I have grown up being reminded to wash my hands prior to eating, but not just because of faecal-oral types of diseases, moreso because of the much more common respiratory viruses. That's the part that seems now to be almost sheer myth. In particular, if someone in the house has a cold, no one would ever dream of eating from their plate or having a sip from their cup.
    Where possible (plastic bottles and metal cans) I am now dumping them in a basin of dilute bleach for ten minutes when I get home from shopping. Other items I spray with 80% isopropanol or an alcohol aerosol can.
    Apparently good old soap works well in destroying the virus on surfaces.
    I have also been thinking when buying ahead, if it's non-perishable leave it in a spare room for a week before unpacking.
    Yes, I feel pretty confident after four days of quarantined packaging, but a week is probably safer still. There was a report that viable COVID-19 causing viruses have been found on cruise ship surfaces after almost three weeks, but I don't know what to make of that, as other places claim the virus generally breaks down in days. It may depend on how hard you look, and the smoother the surface the worse.

  23. #1583
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I am amused, if that is the right word, that my conclusion as a tiny business, is that three months is survivable, longer could be disastrous, is echoed by many much larger businesses. I think it will play out in big economies too, whatever the epidemic does. It had not occurred to me before the importance of quarters.
    That does sound odd, the usual opinion is that the smaller the business, the smaller its reserves for surviving tough times. You are saying the opposite can sometimes be true. The current US bailout focuses mostly on small business-- large companies are expected to simply do what they always do in tough times, lay off a fraction of their workforce and press on. Small businesses are often already operating at minimal workforce capacity, though I suppose we'll soon see a lot of bosses shoveling the gravel, as it were.

    There appears to also be different strategies in the UK vs. US. In the UK, government is working with employers to keep the paychecks flowing so people can retain their jobs. In the US, government is working with the banks to get money to individuals, who will be laid off by their employers and need to retrain and seek new employment. Some claim the US model gives more short-term pain but more flexibilitiy for adapting to changing conditions. We shall see.

  24. #1584
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That does sound odd, the usual opinion is that the smaller the business, the smaller its reserves for surviving tough times. You are saying the opposite can sometimes be true. The current US bailout focuses mostly on small business-- large companies are expected to simply do what they always do in tough times, lay off a fraction of their workforce and press on. Small businesses are often already operating at minimal workforce capacity, though I suppose we'll soon see a lot of bosses shoveling the gravel, as it were.
    I assume there are different processes but three months pops out of the calculation. Small companies can get some support for a few months and expect to bounce back and repay overdrafts, but larger ones can lose customers for ever, staff for ever, or they work on smaller margins than small companies. Also big companies need big bail outs and their creditors therefore worry more that they will just go broke owing An embarrassing amount. So my conclusion is there is the too big to fail idea and the too small to fail idea And both lead to three month’s grace! My analysis is for companies that are doing OK before the crisis, not basket cases.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  25. #1585
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    That does sound odd, the usual opinion is that the smaller the business, the smaller its reserves for surviving tough times.
    There can be disincentives for businesses to retain cash. It will depend on the jurisdiction.

    For example, suppose a firm retains a lot of cash. Well they have that invested in something that earns interest. There is a corporate tax on the interest income. Then they pay out the money to their shareholders, in the form of a dividend; the shareholders have to pay personal taxes on the dividends. So the interest has been taxed twice. On the other hand, suppose they pay out the money in dividends immediately, and let the shareholders invest the money, earning interest. Then the interest only incurs personal tax.

    So conventional wisdom for corporations in a lot of jurisdictions used to be, don't keep cash - if you hang on to cash, you're just handing money over to the government unnecessarily, money that could go to your shareholders instead. So, if you had cash, and did not have any immediate use for it, you were supposed to pay it out. In some countries, this would in fact be mandatory, as corporate management is obligated to act in the best interest of the shareholders, not the best interest of the government.

    The conventional wisdom took a hit back in 2008, when the great recession hit and a lot of firms ran low on cash. It became more popular to keep cash after that, because many firms decided the improved survivability, if another big hit occurred, was worth the tax inefficiency. And the tax inefficiency became not so bad anyway, since interest rates in many countries went down close to zero for an extended period of time.

    Even notwithstanding all of this, though, I'm not sure why a large business would necessarily have cash reserves that would last longer than small firms. If we have two very similar firms, except that one is ten times larger than the other, then all other things being equal, the larger firm would have about ten times the cash reserves as the small one. But they also have ten times the expenses coming due every month. So if their revenues drop off sharply, the length of time their cash reserves will last would be similar.
    A: "Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other"
    B: "The two sides of this triangle are things that are equal to the same"
    C: "If A and B are true, Z must be true"
    D: "If A and B and C are true, Z must be true"
    E: "If A and B and C and D are true, Z must be true"

    Therefore, Z: "The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other"

  26. #1586
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    19,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, those are just the situations we are forcibly discouraged from in the US when in the presence of someone sick with a respiratory virus, I would say even more strongly than washing our hands and certainly we would never think to wear a mask. If a family member came down with a cold, you can be sure their food will be separated ...
    Sorry to be dim about this, but in what way is that different from normal life? Doesn't everyone usually have separate food? Do families in the USA routinely ransack each other's plates at mealtime?

    Grant Hutchison

  27. #1587
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    For all the reasons Grant has discussed, I bet the containers and wrapping are more risky than the food itself. I am quite worried about goods that are on display in supermarkets, with people pawing them and coughing and sneezing nearby. It's the containment exposed to the supermarket environment that is hazardous, not the food inside.

    Where possible (plastic bottles and metal cans) I am now dumping them in a basin of dilute bleach for ten minutes when I get home from shopping. Other items I spray with 80% isopropanol or an alcohol aerosol can.

    I have also been thinking when buying ahead, if it's non-perishable leave it in a spare room for a week before unpacking.
    We are essentially doing the same, though we use wipes in lieu of bleaching for the water bottles. All fast food packaging, for instance, gets carefully trashed (handled with finger touching only), followed by hand washing. The food gets nuked (microwave action) in hopes that any virions will get destroyed.

    But I'm still curious what would be a reasonable amount of seconds of heating from a typical kitchen microwave necessary to deactivate (kill what was never alive) the virus? There are some articles (e.g. here) suggesting as little as 5 seconds, and another Youtube video saying there is no scientific evidence a microwave unit would "kill the virus". Another shows about 2 minutes are required.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  28. #1588
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    We are essentially doing the same, though we use wipes in lieu of bleaching for the water bottles. All fast food packaging, for instance, gets carefully trashed (handled with finger touching only), followed by hand washing. The food gets nuked (microwave action) in hopes that any virions will get destroyed.

    But I'm still curious what would be a reasonable amount of seconds of heating from a typical kitchen microwave necessary to deactivate (kill what was never alive) the virus? There are some articles (e.g. here) suggesting as little as 5 seconds, and another Youtube video saying there is no scientific evidence a microwave unit would "kill the virus". Another shows about 2 minutes are required.
    I see conflicting reports too, but if there is any water in the microwave, including in the food, it will boil and condense out like a steam cleaner, using the time appropriate to the water mass. I think that would destroy viruses. I can boil a cup of water in about a minute and a half, or you could calculate the time from specific heat and the power quoted. The efficiency is high. Any microwaved food should always be “piping hot” like it says on the packets. The microwave frequency is optimised for water, so add water every time.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  29. #1589
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I see conflicting reports too, but if there is any water in the microwave, including in the food, it will boil and condense out like a steam cleaner, using the time appropriate to the water mass. I think that would destroy viruses. I can boil a cup of water in about a minute and a half, or you could calculate the time from specific heat and the power quoted. The efficiency is high. Any microwaved food should always be “piping hot” like it says on the packets. The microwave frequency is optimised for water, so add water every time.
    Ah, that's a clever technique! Heating the food after making steam or very hot droplets then re-heating the water with the food should make it more efficient at reducing or eliminating the virus. The first link in my prior post claims (perhaps true) that a temp. of 56C (132F) greatly reduces the active virions.

    56C isn't very hot, so even if somewhat true, close to 100C should really cause reduction.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  30. #1590
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,162
    Here are some updates and a few additions. Are these useful for y'all?

    World.jpg
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •