|
08 Jul 20 - 04:48 AM (#4063313) Subject: BS: bacteria v viruses From: JHW Just seen an ad for sanitiser that kills 99% bacteria. I have bar cleaner that does the same as does 10% bleach solution - but what about viruses? Does it kill viruses? |
|
08 Jul 20 - 07:12 AM (#4063328) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Both can be weak or robust. Some can even survive in space. Covid 19 can live 16 hours in moist air outside a host. A disinfectant is simply an enviornment too harsh for bacteria or virus to survive. Disinfectants that are safe for you are for external use only. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 08:46 AM (#4063337) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy Usually no, though. Antibacterial is not antiviral. Then there is the whole semantic-linguistic-biological question in use of the word Kill for a virus anyway... |
|
08 Jul 20 - 08:51 AM (#4063339) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri Bacteria can be transmitted by touch. They can live on surfaces for a varying amount of time. They're not normally airborne, and depend on hands, or something getting them from where they are into you. So it's difficult for any sanitizer to kill viruses. You can't apply santizer to the inside of an infected person, no matter what anybody may say. Kill the virus/kill the person. And you can't apply it to the air. A sanitizer probably kills them on surfaces, but you can't guarantee that's the only thing you have to worry about. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 09:25 AM (#4063345) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jack Campin Soaps kill coronaviruses by breaking up the fatty membrane around them. Not all viruses have that, and Gram-positive bacteria will laugh soap off. At any rate, soap is safer for humans than bleach. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 10:14 AM (#4063351) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw I make a point of buying wipes or sanitisers that contain a claim to kill viruses too. Good sanitisers contain around 70% alcohol. Washing your hands in the prescribed manner is best, but when you're out and about a sanitiser is a decent backup. I take antiviral wipes for supermarket trolley handles and things like that. Alcohol does the same as soap to the fatty envelope around the core of the virus. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 10:36 AM (#4063353) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy I never use anything that claims to kill *most* bacteria or viruses. Leaving *only* the hardiest 1% to reproduce is a recipe for disaster. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 10:57 AM (#4063358) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Stilly River Sage Wash your hands with soap and water: Alton Brown |
|
08 Jul 20 - 11:20 AM (#4063369) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel While all these posts are true I think Stilly has the most practical answer. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 12:46 PM (#4063383) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri Still doesn't work on anything airborne, or droplet borne. But washing and alcohol based sanitizers are good for whatever has landed. Fancy products are not required for that. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 06:51 PM (#4063426) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw "I never use anything that claims to kill *most* bacteria or viruses. Leaving *only* the hardiest 1% to reproduce is a recipe for disaster." Well, you see, no product can legally claim to kill one hundred percent of anything. There is always that vanishingly small chance that something as yet undiscovered will be killed by nothing less than a hydrogen bomb at point blank range. You can take it from me that, properly applied, a product containing 70% alcohol will kill all bacteria and viruses. "Properly applied" being the operative term. The "kills most" claim (usually, this end, rendered as "kills 99.99(999)% of all known germs") is simply the company covering its arse. And a good soapy handwash will be just as good as dousing yourself in neat bleach. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 07:07 PM (#4063427) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri I agree with Steve's assessment of "most" covering the nothing-is-perfect philosophy. It doesn't mean that bacteria can withstand the substance. It covers all contingencies (or should I say "most"?) including, the solution wasn't as strong everywhere sprayed or wiped, whoops, I missed a spot, the bacteria were hiding under a lump of snot, or anything else which may have limited it's effectiveness. Medical people (and probably sciency people) avoid saying "100%", "always", "never", or any other words that mean total success or total failure. There are always exceptions. |
|
08 Jul 20 - 09:46 PM (#4063433) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy Encouraging, that info about labeling. Thanks. I feel less afraid of the cure. |
|
09 Jul 20 - 07:31 AM (#4063475) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mr Red Leaving *only* the hardiest 1% to reproduce is a recipe for disaster. I posted on another thread as an analogy. The e. coli O150 bacterium is more resilient than other strains, but grows slowly. And in normal environs the less troublesome strains grow faster and out-compete for real estate. It is a case that cleanliness must be thorough. And so it would appear to be the case with COVID-19. |
|
09 Jul 20 - 04:08 PM (#4063544) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: JHW I wash my hands with soap when I come in. Similarly wash bought products that can't be left to quarantine. Bleach spray I use on taps and door knobs etc. I've used coming in. Looks like soap clags up the virus so is best but not an option when out. |
|
09 Jul 20 - 04:31 PM (#4063549) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Stilly River Sage Every time I check the mail, come in from the store, etc, I wash my hands. Soap and water, or the liquid greensoap with water (I have a pump to make it foam next to the kitchen sink). I never buy antibacterial soap, it causes more problems than it solves. |
|
09 Jul 20 - 07:19 PM (#4063562) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri I got in argument with someone here once about this, but all soap is antibacterial. I'm not sure why, but it is. The "anti-bacterial" thing was probably just a marketing thing. Liquid soap vs bar soap was a marketing thing. although it's more convenient, IMO. (For a while, the FDA Food Code mandated food service facilities have liquid soap, until somebody did a study which overturned a previous study that had been done by a liquid soap manufacturer. Even the grubby little bars of Ivory worked.) Viruses are a little sneakier about how they get into people, and that's the major problem. I can't say this is universally true, but stores around here hose down stuff on their shelves constantly. I'm not sure what they use. Probably, I should ask. |
|
09 Jul 20 - 07:54 PM (#4063563) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Stilly River Sage The "anti-bacterial" feature is an additive (triclosan is most common) that kills some bacteria and if it doesn't kill them, it makes them stronger (as someone observed above.) It's an additive to soap that already, as Jeri points out, is antibacterial. It's an advertising gimmick and and actually makes the soap less effective over time and causes more problems than it solves. |
|
09 Jul 20 - 07:59 PM (#4063564) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Soap, properly used with warm water for long enough, will remove bacteria from your hands. Whether they're dead or not is immaterial. If you've done the job properly, they'll all end up in the drains, dead or alive. It's a bit different with viruses. Soap destroys the lipid coat of the virus. Whether you've done the job properly depends on whether you've reached all the viruses with the soap, hence the need to wash your hands properly. This stuff really isn't hard. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 05:42 AM (#4063614) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: JHW Again it seems soap is the thing so all these premises that claim to be thoroughly sanitised are maybe not? (If they are only spraying sanitiser) |
|
10 Jul 20 - 06:02 AM (#4063617) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Soap and water going down the plug hole is very effective for washing and showering. It's not so easy to effectively clean everything in, say, a pub or hotel room with soapy water without cutting corners, which is where sanitiser spray comes in. A good formulation, used correctly, is the way to go, as it's quick and relatively easy. Nothing's perfect. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 06:36 AM (#4063620) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel The source of the virus is the exhalation breaths of an infected person and to a much lesser degree surfaces that are touched by the infected person. It is a respiratory transmitted virus although it is still unknown if injecting infected blood causes illness as in being transferred by mosquito. Ebola was transferred by bodily fluid contact while Corona is transmitted in micro droplets in the air. To expend all your energy cleaning surfaces but foolishly exposing yourself to people would be a bad thing. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 06:40 AM (#4063621) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Your first sentence appears to imbue what is a matter of some uncertainty with certainty. Stick to the science. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 01:40 PM (#4063669) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri It's only "a matter of some uncertainty" to someone who doesn't feel like wearing a mask. You/Trump, and the current manifestation of "trutherism". WHO -Modes of transmission of the COVID-19 virus. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 02:55 PM (#4063679) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw It's nothing to do with masks. It's to do with the fact that the relative importance of direct inhalation of viruses and infection from touching contaminated surfaces is not settled. Stick to the point and desist from bringing back irrelevant old gripes. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 05:32 PM (#4063697) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel My critic finds numbers meaningless. Now he finds wearing a mask as irrelevant as I find him but its good to have a base line. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 08:08 PM (#4063713) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw You haven't given me numbers, because you can't. The mask-wearing is not relevant to whatever point you were trying to lie to us about. You can't say whether direct transmission via airborne particles is more important than or less important than transmission via the touching of contaminated surfaces. The best scientist in the world doesn't know that, though, apparently, you do, as does Jeri. As for masks, they are just as relevant to whichever side you come down on on that issue. I don't know what the answer to all this is, and neither do you. But I remember my scientific training, whereas you, apparently dealing in certainties, have forgotten yours completely. Or, as I strongly suspect, you haven't got a scientific background at all, despite your pretensions. Everything you ever say here points to that. I'm far too polite to say to you "drop the bullshit," though I find myself sorely tempted. |
|
10 Jul 20 - 10:42 PM (#4063723) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: robomatic What applies at least as much as mask wearing, even if the mask is not one of the 95% types used by medical people. There are three main reasons: 1) Virus transmittal on both large and small droplets from speech, cough, sneeze (and song). Wearing the mask isolates others from what's coming out of you. 2) More recently emphasized the point that contagions can be in the air more than a few feet and a few minutes due to suspension on small particles. Wearing the mask helps keep them from getting to you. And stop touching your face. 3) Something that I heard some time ago, but still applies. The virus does its damage primarily in your nasal passages and especially deep in your lungs. Bronchial diseases have their own issues in how the body can react and defend itself against them. So keep 'em out of your lungs and hopefully away from your life. |
|
11 Jul 20 - 04:48 AM (#4063738) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw I'm done with arguing about masks. The point I was contesting was the assertion that direct airborne transmission is more important than picking up the virus from surfaces. We don't know that is all I was saying. Masks trapping droplets would impact both of those. Someone else dived in with an old quarrel about masks. Thank you. |
|
11 Jul 20 - 05:08 AM (#4063740) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: JHW It was the effectivemess of sanitiser I was trying to establish. 'Nothings perfect' may be the answer, so we stay being extra cautious. |
|
11 Jul 20 - 08:41 AM (#4063743) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Hand sanitiser is great after the fact. After you've touched stuff that might be contaminated, as long as you haven't touched your face in the interim. Supermarket trolleys for example. It can't protect you from stuff you touch after you've used it. I have a small pack of antiviral wipes for that purpose that goes shopping with me. |
|
11 Jul 20 - 11:05 AM (#4063751) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel OH ! You wanted an argument, well this is guidance. Arguments are down there. :^> |
|
11 Jul 20 - 04:23 PM (#4063769) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel A lot of people are reading scientific papers for the first time these days, hoping to make sense of the coronavirus pandemic. If you’re one of them, be advised the scientific paper is a peculiar literary genre that can take some getting used to. And also bear in mind that these are not typical times for scientific publishing. It is hard to think of another moment in history when so many scientists turned their attention to one subject with such speed. In mid-January, scientific papers began trickling out with the first details about the new coronavirus. By the end of the month, the journal Nature marveled that over 50 papers had been published. That number has swelled over the past few months at an exponential rate, fitting for a pandemic. The National Library of Medicine’s database at the start of June contains over 17,000 published papers about the new coronavirus. A website called bioRxiv, which hosts studies that have yet to go through peer review, contains over 4,000 papers. In earlier times, few people aside from scientists would have laid eyes on these papers. Months or years after they were written, they’d wind up in printed journals tucked away on a library shelf. But now the world can surf the rising tide of research on the new coronavirus. The vast majority of papers about it can be read for free online. But just because scientific papers are easier to get hold of doesn’t mean that they are easy to make sense of. Reading them can be a challenge for the layperson, even one with some science education. It’s not just the jargon that scienfists use to compress a lot of results into a small space. Just like sonnets, sagas and short stories, scientific papers are a genre with its own unwritten rules, rules that have developed over generations. Bio Chemistry like geometry has its own flow of reductions and oxidations. With a desent glossary the average catter will follow a scientific paper. |
|
11 Jul 20 - 04:27 PM (#4063771) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Most of that was copied and pasted. The rest is bullshit. |
|
12 Jul 20 - 03:28 AM (#4063812) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mr Red You haven't given me numbers, Statistics don't deal in numbers, they deal in probabilities. And the probability is that any number coming from a Gov source is processed or did I mean suspect? To my mind there is only one certainty in life and that is death. Even if we haven't nailed down if Elvis truly is! |
|
12 Jul 20 - 03:56 AM (#4063816) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Well forgive me for reminding you that I was responding directly to a post which referred to numbers. Perhaps the title of this thread should be "How to miss the point every time." |
|
12 Jul 20 - 10:35 AM (#4063847) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel There is no forgiveness or apology for those with NO understaning of nuance and think everything is a binary choice; racism no racism, me or you, smart or stupid, I know everything you know nothing, coke or pepsi, democrat or republican. That binary choice assures a mandatory conflict with no true understanding of the grey area. Absent apology, there is an understanding of those without a will or ability to have a nuanced flexability of thought and are just stuck in a binary hell. There are not only 2 sides to every issue. For example the bizzare behavior of some people may be due to angst from self isolation - or a hundred other reasons. You don't needto know biochemistry to make good choices for yourself anyway. |
|
12 Jul 20 - 12:01 PM (#4063859) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Noreen Steve Shaw, Jeri kindly added a link to the WHO summary of what IS known and accepted about modes of transmission of the virus in question, updated on July 9th with the latest scientific evidence. I would hope we would all accept what is written there? WHO/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations |
|
12 Jul 20 - 12:03 PM (#4063860) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Noreen And as Mrrzy mentioned above, a virus cannot actually be killed as it is not living. |
|
12 Jul 20 - 05:05 PM (#4063903) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Whether you want to use the word "kill" apropos of the inactivation of a virus is immaterial. If it can no longer get you because it's been nobbled, you can say that it's been killed if you like. Your assertion that a virus is "not living" is not based on any science that I know of. By the way, Noreen, I read Jeri's link. There is nothing in it that negates in any way anything I've said in this thread. If you think differently, do apprise me. I hope you'll read the link as carefully as I did if you feel like responding. One thing's for sure: whether it's about masks or the means of transmission, there is no certainty and there is plenty of disagreement, and you won't find me making unsupported assertions. There have been one or two of those in this thread. |
|
13 Jul 20 - 09:53 AM (#4064001) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mr Red Perhaps the title of this thread should be "How to miss the point every time. You forgot the pedant word. As for missing points, after you old boy, you are so much better at it. |
|
13 Jul 20 - 10:27 AM (#4064003) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: robomatic This is de facto a non technical thread in a non technical forum. I'm sure there are formal terms for whether viruses are 'live' or 'dead'. I'm also sure this is not the place for that, because we are not masters of that language. For instance, when it comes to vaccines, there are so called 'live' virus and 'killed' virus vaccines. I'm making a point about language here not vaccines. There is a large (HUMONGOUS) amount of knowledge out there and even professionals don't agree with each other. Masquerading as one in here is simply making yourself similar to our SierraFoxtrotBravo CIC who has promoted his own ferkakhte antidotes for the current contagion. Simply put: Masks good, Everyone in the midst of the current contagion who can should wear one to restrict emission and inhalation of particles. Also simple: We're dealing with a virus with respect to Covid-19. Earlier in this thread I tried to make the point that this virus mainly infects and kills humans through their nasal and breathing parts. This puts it in its own biological field of warfare with its own technical complications known to the experts and those fighting it in the field. It is indeed a kind of warfare, as our SFB CIC has noted, and entitles our reaction to involve mandated behavior and collective reaction, as our SFB CIC has alternately noted and derided. A lot of people are dying as a result of confusion as to what to believe and as to what to do about it. |
|
13 Jul 20 - 12:53 PM (#4064031) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Bloody, all your posts, make a big noise Playing in BS, gonna be a big man someday No mask on your on your face, you big disgrace Kicking assertions all over the place, singin'… I will I will flog you |
|
13 Jul 20 - 02:48 PM (#4064049) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Noreen "Your assertion that a virus is "not living" is not based on any science that I know of." I'm only basing in on what I learned doing my Biochemistry and Biological Sciences degree. This may be of interest, as the subect is not cut and dried (Though if it was cut and dried it would probably no longer be infectious...) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/ |
|
13 Jul 20 - 04:43 PM (#4064061) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Virus can indeed help humans in the long run. Cancer treatments can use a measles virus to break into cells and release 'medicine'. Evolution is 30% dependant on virus to change our genome. In your own distant past large segments of feline DNA code has entered the human genome probably as a result of viral infection. In Noreen's link you will see some virus are like a missing link between virus and bacteria. There are many forms of life that are yet to be discovered but our current understanding shows us an amazing panopoly of life. Many virus have found niches to exploit other life forms to continue their own evolution that it is virtually unimaginable to know the xtent of viral interactions with us or life itself. |
|
13 Jul 20 - 04:44 PM (#4064062) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160713100911.htm |
|
13 Jul 20 - 05:31 PM (#4064070) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw "I'm only basing in on what I learned doing my Biochemistry and Biological Sciences degree." Snap. Not one you can pull on me, Noreen, unfortunately. And the two posts immediately before mine are complete bullshit. |
|
13 Jul 20 - 07:43 PM (#4064079) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Noreen Not pulling anything Steve, merely stating my case as you said my statement that a virus is not living isn’t based on science. The Scientific American article might persuade you otherwise, though you sound as if you’re only here for an argument and I have more interesting things to do. |
|
13 Jul 20 - 08:28 PM (#4064083) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw I don't tend to deal with popular science publications, Noreen. That is merely the ould logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and you and I both know (as scientists, yeah?) that there are far finer authorities than a magazine that depends on dumbed-down "science" for its existence (and I did have a subscription for several years before I saw the light...) I honestly don't care whether or not you think that viruses are alive or not and I'm not here for a fight. But if a scientific point arises in a thread, I am quite keen to make the point for proper science, that is that assertions are always supported by solid evidence and that we always accept that science is never about the kind of certainties that you, Jeri and our deranged friend Donuel appear to indulge in. Anyway, I've heard that Boris will make us wear masks in shops very soon. Good. I have one at the ready, and I'll wear it properly, unlike the vast majority of people I've so far seen wearing them (down then up then down, fiddling with them, nose out, on chin for a fag then back up, on in shop but on chin before then after...) In fact, I have a stash of masks at the ready... ...Though I still can't help thinking that we'd all be better off without them. And, for months, there's been no mask culture here. Yet now, with deaths down in single figures, we are suddenly obliged to wear them. Even though pubs (down with the mask to sup your pint) and restaurants (down with the mask in order to eat) and swimming pools and gyms (huff puff huff puff and here, share my virus...) can carry on irregardless (see what I did there?) When it comes to science, Noreen, I'm never here for a fight. That's just your intellectual copout. Science is too important to be subdued by prejudice and popularism. Donuel and Jeri don't understand that, but you, as a a scientist, should be able to meet that challenge. Without a fight, preferably. Love, Steve. |
|
15 Jul 20 - 09:07 PM (#4064348) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria vs. viruses - who will win? From: Donuel The Scientific American magazine is not a popular science magazine. It is a scholarly publication with a proud history going back over 100 years. Steve aka Col. Blimp is a good 30 years out of the loop of modern science. :^> Colonial times in England makes is eyes misty but his knowledge of America is null and void. |
|
16 Jul 20 - 04:12 AM (#4064382) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw "Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm or sometimes SA) is an American popular science magazine." That's the first sentence of the wiki article on Scientific American. Popular science magazines have their place, but it's understandable, unfortunately, that non-scientists such as yourself who can't handle the rigour of real peer-reviewed articles confuse such approachable publications with the technical nitty-gritty of proper science. In recent weeks you've made several erroneous assertions about this disease, for example, to illustrate the point. Perhaps you'll check things out a bit more carefully before you issue your next tirade of jealous insults. |
|
16 Jul 20 - 05:04 AM (#4064391) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Col. Blimp thinks Wikipedia is the ultimate resource or a publish or perish proposal journal provides proof. |
|
16 Jul 20 - 09:06 AM (#4064420) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw As a scientist I don't deal in proofs. But the evidence is clear: Scientific American, good read though it occasionally is, simply regurgitates past scientific findings that hopefully have been peer-reviewed elsewhere. There's no peer-reviewing of articles in SA. Technical matters are watered down so that reasonably intelligent non-specialist readers won't struggle. All good. But that's the very epitome of a popular science magazine. The fact that you don't see it that way speaks volumes about your own rather shaky scientific literacy, and that's putting it kindly. I see we've been somewhat deleted. I could suggest that your penchant for silly insults could be a contributory factor, though there are doubtless others. |
|
16 Jul 20 - 09:14 AM (#4064422) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Seriously, under the radar there are several signs of hope. Therapeutics like Resdemivir are arriving before vaccines, rapid low cost saliva tests are a game changer. Past exposure to common cold corona virus might help and vaccine trials seem to work. There is also mono clonal antibodies that will be coming onto market this Fall. They are working and are not a rumor. New research accounts for 20-50% whp have never been exposed to Covid 19 still have immune cells that react to this virus. The specculation for that. is that past exposure to normal common cold corona virus' creates a cross connectivity for partial or full immunity. Bear in mind that it is my wife and not I who works for NIH. There are some things thay are a 'close hold' and can not be discussed openly but there is real and substantiated progress being made. |
|
16 Jul 20 - 04:03 PM (#4064469) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: JHW 'they'll all end up in the drains, dead or alive' So does the water authority end up with them or are they dead or ineffective by the time they reach the Sewage Works? |
|
17 Jul 20 - 10:15 PM (#4064662) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: robomatic I don't get the attack on mask wearing. Pretty much any reputable science based authority has supported mask wearing, and the more responsible political authorities have as well. It makes good sense to combine mask wearing with personal distancing. I took the hint by remembering how so many Asian folks were wearing masks especially on airplanes and also on the ground during and long after the SARS experience. Initially I did not take this very seriously. On consideration I think I was living in a fool's paradise. As for Scientific American. It's a popular magazine that has been around a long time by American standards and has an article index worth consulting. I was an avid fan for many years and took it seriously until the turn of the last millenium when they devoted a full issue to celebrate General Motors' conquest of the fuel cell vehicle. This was such obvious commercial claptrap that I never subscribed again. Hopefully they have climbed back to their once reputable stature. |
|
18 Jul 20 - 02:17 AM (#4064682) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mr Red I'm sure there are formal terms for whether viruses are 'live' or 'dead'. I repeat from another thread. Nobody bats an eyelid at the phrase kill your speed, not the child. And in that context the invocation is to reduce not reduce to zero. Whereas, in the context of viruses the implication is to reduce to zero. Idiomatic language............. eh? |
|
18 Jul 20 - 10:37 AM (#4064758) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw Though viruses contain the stuff of life, namely nucleic acids, they don't fit most of those "criteria of life" that so many stuffy biology textbooks insisted on. They do reproduce, however, via replication of those nucleic acids, just like we do. Heritable mutations occur, just like with us. Arguing over whether they're living or non-living is pointless. |
|
18 Jul 20 - 01:28 PM (#4064788) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Being meaningless and pointless to Steve is meaninglesss and pointless because its only inside his own head. I repeat that most virus is composed of a single strand of RNA while DNA is composed of two interlinked strands. As with life there are exceptions to the rule. Virus do not practice politics but they do strive to reproduce parasiticly. |
|
19 Jul 20 - 02:27 PM (#4064945) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy Had a long talk with a virologist friend. Viri, as I like to call them [incorrectly] are not *cells* but infect cells and hijack their machinery to make virus instead of what the cell had been manufacturing. So the term for a virus not currently attacking a cell is inactive, and for one rendered incapable of any such attack is No longer infectious, the goal of antivirals. But people say Live virus or killed virus alla time, in regular speech. Bacteria are cells. They are alive or dead, depending on whether they are alive or dead. Easy-peasy. How long this virus remains capable of infecting on various surfaces is being studied, and there are loads of data on that. How much virus is in aerosols exhaled by infected people is also being studied, and there are loads of data on masks reducing aerosol exhalations, too. What we are seeing here, in the US I mean, is an expected [by many of us] consequence of "respecting people's beliefs" as if they [the beliefs, not the people] were knowledge. Any country that won't teach science in case it contradicts someone's *faith* is getting what it asked for. |
|
19 Jul 20 - 03:11 PM (#4064954) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel As a devout Zoroastrian the word mrzzy is anathma to me! Smite the word, draw and quarter the people ;^O The armed giant silent non complient invisible majority has so written so it shall be done. The odd book has spoken. Remember the freedom of crazy religions is in the Constitution. |
|
19 Jul 20 - 05:12 PM (#4064980) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw "pointless to Steve is meaninglesss and pointless because its only inside his own head. I repeat that most virus is composed of a single strand...(etc.)" And that is a meaningless and pointless attack. Viruses are composed of either a single or double strand of nucleic acid, they have genes which can mutate, they can be subject to natural selection, they have a protein coat and often a lipid coat too. Hope this helps. |
|
20 Jul 20 - 05:15 PM (#4065150) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy Wait, the word Mrrzy is anathema to zoroastrians? |
|
20 Jul 20 - 05:44 PM (#4065162) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel If you don't care about clarity for all: RNAi is the name of the process (RNA interference). The RNA interference is a molecular process where an antisenseRNA bind to a complementary target mRNA and drive the mRNA cleavage and degradation. This cause a gene expression silencing at a non-transcriptional but translational level. The action is mediated in the end by a nucleoproteic complex made by a single strand short antisense RNA and the RISC complex (RNA interference silencing complex). So RNAi is a generic name for this kind of non-genomic gene silencing mediated by different RNA species. It's the name of the effect, not the name of the effector. There are different kind of RNAs that can activate DICER/RISC complexes and trigger gene expression at translational level through RNAi mechanism and this is the reason why you can find long-dsRNA, miRNA, siRNA. All these RNAs finally work as a 19-20 nucleotides single strand antisense RNA attached to the RISC complex for sensing and triggering the right mRNA but they're different at the beginning. The main difference is between miRNA and siRNA because the siRNA is a double strand short RNA, they're mainly exogenous, for example a viral interference RNA that can aim at the host gene regulation, but it can also can be designed experimentally and produced by in vitro transcription for knockdown experiments. Instead the miRNA is a single stranded RNA which fold himself after the synthesis into the nucleus by RNA pol. This stem-loop structure made by the same single strand RNA is cleaved at the level of the loop generating a more or less long double strand RNA derived by an Initial Single Stranded RNA. It is then exported into the cytosol, cleaved and loaded into the same RISC complex. So miRNA is an endogenous alternative gene silencing process, there are a lot of known miRNA expressed in certain situations by cells for a fine gene-regulation. The long dsRNA is the name of a long (200-500 nt) double strand RNA which is synthetized as a double strand RNA through in vitro transcription and then experimentally delivered into hosts cells for knockdown purposes. Once it is into the cells this long RNA is cleaved by DICER complex exactly like siRNA in many 19-20 nt fragments and these fragments are loaded into the RISC complex for sensing mRNA population searching for the target mRNA. So for the most part virus exist as a single strand but can employ ds methods in an entirely differnt manner than dsDNA |
|
20 Jul 20 - 06:23 PM (#4065164) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mr Red perhaps the word "parasite" is more relevant to viruses. AND how many times have we heard the phrase, in the context of vaccines and various types thereof, live virus vaccine? To distinguish one based on a completely incapacitated. And don't our scientists, and scientific publications, use the phrase? More as a way of conveying information - as opposed to pedantic etymological data. And in that context the balance of correctness has to go with usage. What we of this parish refer to as the Folk Process is ever more noticeable in language. aprop pos of bacterium v virus. I heard on QI that an early cure for syphilis was to infect the patient with measles (?), (not that I believe much from that scientific myre). |
|
20 Jul 20 - 07:17 PM (#4065169) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel My mom used to say feed a cold starve a fever. |
|
20 Jul 20 - 08:12 PM (#4065176) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Steve Shaw I'm sure you have your own reasons for posting that obscurantist bullshit. I ask meself if we'll ever find out. |
|
20 Jul 20 - 08:40 PM (#4065183) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel If you don't know or care you will never find out. I believe that saying has something to do with limiting the reproduction of virus at a critical time. |
|
20 Jul 20 - 10:05 PM (#4065197) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: robomatic Don'l: You're alternately infuriating and cute. I think that is your plan. But in all things all ways you are undeviatingly inaccurate. "Smoke on your pipe and put THAT in!"* *actual musical reference (Praise Sondheim!) |
|
21 Jul 20 - 05:59 AM (#4065239) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: JHW America - West Side Story In the UK as pavement dining arrives to evade viruses moves are now afoot to reduce smokers who have been used to using this space. |
|
21 Jul 20 - 09:57 AM (#4065273) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy I still want to know what I did to the zoroastrians. |
|
21 Jul 20 - 11:11 AM (#4065280) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri The feed/starve thing is folklore, and bogus. You only feed or starve yourself. And a person (who happens to be an atheist) can't convert to Zoroastrianism. I hated having to put a religion on my dog tags in the military, so I told them "Zoroastrianism". But you have to be born one. I don't know where the rest of it is, but I once wrote a verse to Plastic Jesus (and there was something about Mazda and light): In my car, in pristine plaster, there's a bust of Zoroaster, sitting on the dashboard of my car. |
|
21 Jul 20 - 12:10 PM (#4065285) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Mrrzy Ooh nice! And just like *that* -it's a music thread. |
|
21 Jul 20 - 12:22 PM (#4065287) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Jeri No, it's now just a BS thread about religion. Or language. Perhaps we need a general "whatever shit people feel like talking about" heading to drop degenerated threads into, once people get tired of the stated topiuc. |
|
21 Jul 20 - 06:17 PM (#4065324) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: Donuel Robo I like facts and I like fun. My having both should not infuriate you. I am also willing to weigh in on big stories before everything is known. At any rate don't make me your historian or your journalist. I was told we are the composite of the people we meet and the books we read. Having to learn by other means I have made a habit of meeting remarkable people and pioneers. I'm still open to find out what is remarkable about you. Everyone has at least 2 things. |
|
21 Jul 20 - 11:44 PM (#4065348) Subject: RE: BS: bacteria v viruses From: robomatic Donuel: Infuriating does not mean infuriated. I long ago realized you have as free a relation to facts as our current fearless leader. I occasionally enjoy your freeform thought patterns and mythomania. It is not clear that you like facts. Possibly you enjoy the idea of facts. As the saying goes: "Reality - What a concept!" |