OT: CEO responses to Covid-19

[Michael Terrell]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:20:28 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 10:55:26 PM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:
What bugs me is that all of the Supermarkets around here have dropped most or all of their low sugar and no sugar added foods, following Hurricane Irma. I have asked the managers why, but they look me in the eyes and tell me that they haven't dropped anything.

And THAT is the level of consciousness we're dealing with!
The historical stocking level of any item in the store ought to be a verifiable FACT.

Honestly, for specialty foods like that (not that's low-sugar foods are particularly special), I would just order online. (Something you're probably already doing anyway.)

But I can feel the frustration of having to deal with clueless store managers.
I suspect they don't get paid very well, expect for the top-dog, or someone with a lot of tenure. And even then... For a store like a Walmart, I would suspect they have everything pre-planned out, and all the store "manager" really "needs" is a pulse.

Some inventory is force feed, from the warehouse. They can't order extra, without shorting another store. The one diet soda that I can drink is Diet Mountain Dew, or the knockoffs. Winn-Dixie dropped it in cans and bottles. Publix never carried it. Save-A Lot dropped their two liter bottles, and the cans cost as much as two liter bottles of the real Mountain Dew. That only leaves Walmart. They get three cases of six bottles per delivery. It is gone in an hour. When Save A Lot was carrying it, I could request up to five cases of eight bottles. It would be set aside, as long as I picked it up within two days. 40 bottles would last me three to six weeks, depending on how bad my medication affected my thirst. It also filled the bottom shelf in my pantry.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:51:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:35:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which is
energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is therefore useful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more
energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.
Again I am no expert and don't have any uvc sources.

Not trying to be insulting, but your statement about ionizing shows that you don't understand the issue. The ability of light to ionize isn't about the strength, it's about the wavelength. That's the photoelectric effect. Light is in quanta that have a finite amount of energy which is determined by the wavelength. Too long a wavelength and there isn't enough energy in the quantum to dislodge an electron from it's bond with the atom, so no ionization. An adequately short wavelength gives the quanta enough energy to knock loose the electrons independent of intensity.

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the highest ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's why they use it in germicidal applications. It does the job, at least on bacteria. I don't know how well it works on viruses.

-- projects

Rick C.

---+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I dug out a physics book and refreshed my memory. There are some internet sites that imply that UVC would be suitable for sanitizing airborne particles and was not a safety problem.And I suppose it is if properly contained and interlocked.

Anyway thanks for correcting me.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 3:15:12 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 11:11:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 1:03:07 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hquestionands, however - you'll kill your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.question
question

Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiation) which is energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RquestionNA, and is therefore useful for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand correctly from various internet sites , UVC does not have to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.

Your understanding confuses intensity - which is the number of photons - with ionizing capacity - which is the wavelength of the photons.

Any UVC photon has a quantum of energy sufficient to ionise the biological molecules that that we are talking about here.

You need enough photons to ionise enough molecules to damage pathogens enough to kill them off, but that many phontons does enough damage to the molecule in your skin to make you more likely to get skin cancers.

You are confusing "strenght" as applied to ionising capacity with "strength" in the sense of producing enough photons to ionise enough molecules to have a perceptible effect.

You wouldn't have got through your expensive and high prestige education if you made that kind of mistake when you were younger.

Actually my high prestige education was not that expensive. When I applied the tuition was $200 / year. But went up to $600 a year the following year. And you are right, I did know better then , but never needed that bit of knowledge in the 60 years since then.

Weird. It's a rather fundamental physical insight - admittedly one Einstein's famous four, published in 1905

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers

and it kept on coming up in the work I did throughout my career.

$600 a year tuition wasn't cheap back then, and you were fed and housed away from home, which wasn't cheap either. My tuition was covered by an Australian government Commonwealth Scholarship, of which there were lots at that stage - if you did well enough to qualify for university entrance you almost always got one.

There was a an associated living allowance, but it was means-tested against your parents income, and the cut-off level hadn't been inflation adjusted for years, and hardly anyone I knew got anything from it. I certainly didn't - my father had got most of his 25 patents by then, and it was reflected in his salary.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:11ec935a-63f9-4e00-8459-8b173c08e247@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:17:28 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 3:00:32 PM UTC-7,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2020 12:53:06 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

The key phrase here is "plausible."

Key to what? The 'global cooling', unless it refers to
nuclear winter, is the only implausible item in the list.

It was "science" in the 1970s.

Misleading. It was reasonable to question whether an ice age
might be starting up, and the answer quickly came back 'no'. It
wasn't a viable theory, it was an hypothesis. You could also call
phlogiston "science", but that hypothesis, too, tested out false.

For most of our lifetimes, it has been POST-1970s, and the
cooling hypothesis has been far short of "plausible". So is
ice-9, in case you were worried about that, too. There's an
ice-IX, but it's much more benign than the Vonnegut creation.

Darn. I was hoping there might someday be an xkcd about the real
ice-9... or even better, ice-09.

There is gonna be a Win 10 X. Supposed to be even better.

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:2c970bd5-9c0a-4dee-9f3f-50345ab17ef6@googlegroups.com:

Actually, I'm more annoyed at how everyone these days is an
"expert" on practically any topic, with a few keystrokes.

I'm old enough, and wise enough, to know otherwise.

SED is crawling with so-called "experts".

Do you consider yourself to be an expert on that opinion? (hahaha)

Sorry, but when I know my lines, I have to deliver them.

You sport the Kruger-Dunning effect.

Don't deny it. Tee hee hee...

That is part of the syndrome. I know ALL about it! ;-)

Bwuahahahahaha!

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:2c970bd5-9c0a-4dee-9f3f-
50345ab17ef6@googlegroups.com:

In short: A veneer of "action" is not really action.
You may disagree. (Maybe you're an expert too.)?

Using lame metaphors or colloquial terms in a crisis to try to make
some point is worse than Trump and his inane hand gestures.

Maybe you think you are an expert at making pointless misdirected
observations.

Looks like lame action is worse than "a veneer of action".

Your action is lame, boy.

Mine, however slides nice and smooth, because I can break it down
and clean it and lube it and put it back together and shoot you with
it while blindfolded inside of 60 seconds!

Bwuahahahahah! You are so funny. You have to be making a series
of jokes against humanity posts.

I rather like making jokes about you posts.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8ec26882-88b2-48f7-aa8a-e4c4e395547a@googlegroups.com:

I understand completely the sort of person you are. That's why I
often just don't even reply to your posts. It seldom results in
any useful dialog.

You are worse than Sloman with this constant, retarded set of lines.

YOUR RETARDED POSTS seldom result in anything worth retaining.

You are like the dingleberries of the group, and you interloped your
way here almost a decade ago from the Physics group, where you were
reviled and proven wrong so often.

Or maybe that was some other asshole you remind me of.

Either way, even if "slightly more calm", you version of vitriol is
pretty fucking lame, boy.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5a01c4a4-3aa3-425a-83f2-49c5100a03bb@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 10:12:00 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

Actually, I'm more annoyed at how everyone these days is an
"expert" on practically any topic, with a few keystrokes.

I like that YOU are obsessed with what others are doing and how
effective it is without contributing a single damn thing to the
discussion or anything else.

You are a part of the problem and very vocal about it which makes
you even more a part of the problem.

But then we all do what we do best.

Said the Kruger-Dunning poster child!

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in

Sometimes we stand at the edge of a cliff, and as men, we are
required to have a pissing contest.

That must be an east coast thing. On the west coast, prevailing winds are in toward the shore.

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:6931f60c-e720-4a5f-ada7-3ef382692bdb@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:50:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:35:44 PM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org
wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David
Brown wrote
:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on
certain items
(mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to
be quite paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly
used for sterili
sing
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however -
you'll k
ill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA
and UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiation)
which is energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and
is therefore use
ful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your
body.
UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB -
it has mo
re
energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on
the safe
ty of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and
gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand
correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have
to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses.
Again I am no expert and don't have any uvc sources.

UVC is short wavelength UV - 200 to 280 nanometers (nm). Every
individual
UVC photon is "strong" enough to damage a virus or one of your
skin cells.

If the light source is sufficiently intense, that damage can
built up to
lethal levels - both for skin cells and virus particles.

You lack of understanding is of elementary physics, as opposed to
UVC.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You are correct. It has been so long since I needed to know the
physics that _I believed what I found on the internet.

Dan

Clear walled pipes and huge UV lamps are one of the elements of
milk pastuerization.

UV lamps are used in electrostatic HVAC filtration units as well,
or as a separate module in the HVAC air pathway.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:10970568-d9d8-48f7-92d3-445cdd910f23@googlegroups.com:

Hey, it's nice to have a discussion where it didn't turn into a
pissing contest.

Sometimes we stand at the edge of a cliff, and as men, we are
required to have a pissing contest.

Regardless of whether or not one or more of the contestants should
also find themselves following the arc of the piss over the cliff.

And IF that fails to make sense to you... well...

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:10970568-d9d8-
48f7-92d3-445cdd910f23@googlegroups.com:

> I didn't know reasonable people bothered to come here.

See? There ya go. You are one of the ones that should follow the
arc of the piss over the cliff.

Sound reasonable enough, punk.

You know... credit where credit is due and all that.

Essentially you fail to see how you are part of the problem.

You think you are better than everyone here.

 

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in
news:98beadd4-395e-4131-8038-06e473e07b29@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:01:08 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

Hey, it's nice to have a discussion where it didn't turn into a
pissing contest. I didn't know reasonable people bothered to
come here.

Translation: Rick C's undisguised attempt to atone for his own
passive-aggressive tendencies.

He's aware his comment is targeted.
The fact that it is speaks volumes.

See if my standing at the edge of a cliff response matches up with
human psychology for you at all.

We could all spit huge "loogies" over the cliff as well, but we are
in a stop the respiratory particulate flux world.

I expectorate every day. My cilia pushes it up... tells me it
wants out. I do NOT swallow my phlegm.

I expectorate it. I also kick it back out of my sinus too and
expectorate that. When one rides a bike, one breathes dust. When I
expectorate lung phlegm, I see particulate in it. Captured. Tells
me that God made mucus membranes for a reason. It wants out... I
want it out. Been doing that for decades literally. My lungs feel
clear AND clean too. I would still go for a Oxygenated
perfluoricarbon rinse in a heartbeat though. The drown response
spasm would probably give me a heart attack though. But MAN! ALL
THAT MUCUS COMES OUT! A DNC (Dustin' N Cleanin')for the lungs!

Back in '87 when I still smoked tobacco, it was thick and GREEN!
If that is not a signal I don't know what is. I quit, cold turkey.
And ever since my sinus has been thin and clear. 33 years, NO
TOBACCO. But that nasty green slime spit told me that expectoration
is actually a healthy thing... for the person doing it. And I am
aware of it so I do not throw tiny spittle droplets all over the
place.

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:10e46915-d797-4e41-a4f1-9ebd6348f265@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, March 16, 2020 at 12:07:39 AM UTC-7,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in

Sometimes we stand at the edge of a cliff, and as men, we are
required to have a pissing contest.

That must be an east coast thing. On the west coast, prevailing
winds are in toward the shore.

Not all cliffs are on shorelines.

 

[gregz]

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 13/03/2020 06:39, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 12:39:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Winfield Hill wrote:
Today I got emails from the CEOs of three companies
about their actions to protect us against Covid-19.
Walmart said their stores are cleaned daily, with
sanitizing solutions. Subway said they're cleaning
most-touched surfaces once per hour. A local pub-
restaurant, Tavern in the Square, uses disinfectant
wipes to clean and sanitize all tables, phones, POS-
screens, check presenters, booths, chairs and menus
in between guest's seatings. Plus five other items.


"Sanitizers" supposedly kill up to 95% germs.

Any figures like that are meaningless. In particular, there is no
indication as to whether it is is 95% of types of pathogen, 95% of
quantity, or how they decide which set of pathogens should be counted.

Alcohol is effective against all bacteria (but not bacteria spores),
many viruses and some fungi, as well as (AFAIK) almost all parasites.
For some kinds of viruses and fungi, it is basically useless. And to be
effective, it needs a high concentration (70% - 90%), and it needs time
to work. 30 seconds is a reasonable rule of thumb, but it is
exponential decay - a certain fraction of the pathogens are disabled
each second.

Non-alcoholic sanitizers are usually much less effective (with the ones
that are somewhat effective often having more side-effects).

1) What about the remaining 5%? THOSE are obviously dangerous and
might mutate to worse.

No, they are not "obviously dangerous" - they are obviously less
affected by the sanitizer. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) I understand that what they use is triclosan, which has the
ability to disrupt hormones and contribution to a rise in resistant
strains of bacteria.

Triclosan is often used in non-alcoholic sanitizers. It is effective
against many bacteria and fungi, but not all, and not against viruses or
most other pathogens. It is suspected (but not confirmed) to have
adverse effects on health and hormones. There is no evidence that it
has lead to increased resistant bacteria - but it can't be ruled out.


Better to use alcohol wipes, best to use the common old-fashioned
soap and water!

Soap and water, used properly, is the best when possible. Alcohol wipes
are of questionable value in many cases - alcohol sanitizers are a
better choice (when you can't wash properly).


The "sanitizers" you mention containing triclosan are anti-bacterial,
not anti-viral and do little for either.

Alcohol is also not particularly useful unless used appropriately
which most people, including hospital workers, fail to do. It is
used in places where frequent hand cleaning is required because it is
less drying or irritating to skin than soap. But for most of us,
soap and water are much more effective at killing/removing all germs
including both bacteria and viruses. In fact, soap and water are
particularly good at killing viruses by dissolving the lipid layers
that hold the virus together, essentially dissolving them into
particles.

Not all virus types have much in the way of lipids in their shells,
which is why alcohol does not affect some viruses. Still, a major
effect of soap and water is physically removing the pathogens from your
hands, and that works regardless of any resistance to soaps.


I have read nothing about triclosan use resulting in resistant
strains of bacteria. If it did, they would only be resistant to
triclosan which would not be a great loss.


Indeed.

And there is vinegar.

Greg

 

gregz <zekor@comcast.net> wrote in
news:1702022523606038885.999191zekor-comcast.net@news.eternal-septemb
er.org:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
On 13/03/2020 06:39, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2020 at 12:39:58 AM UTC-4, Robert Baer
wrote:
Winfield Hill wrote:
Today I got emails from the CEOs of three companies
about their actions to protect us against Covid-19.
Walmart said their stores are cleaned daily, with
sanitizing solutions. Subway said they're cleaning
most-touched surfaces once per hour. A local pub-
restaurant, Tavern in the Square, uses disinfectant
wipes to clean and sanitize all tables, phones, POS-
screens, check presenters, booths, chairs and menus
in between guest's seatings. Plus five other items.


"Sanitizers" supposedly kill up to 95% germs.

Any figures like that are meaningless. In particular, there is
no indication as to whether it is is 95% of types of pathogen,
95% of quantity, or how they decide which set of pathogens should
be counted.

Alcohol is effective against all bacteria (but not bacteria
spores), many viruses and some fungi, as well as (AFAIK) almost
all parasites. For some kinds of viruses and fungi, it is
basically useless. And to be effective, it needs a high
concentration (70% - 90%), and it needs time to work. 30 seconds
is a reasonable rule of thumb, but it is exponential decay - a
certain fraction of the pathogens are disabled each second.

Non-alcoholic sanitizers are usually much less effective (with
the ones that are somewhat effective often having more
side-effects).

1) What about the remaining 5%? THOSE are obviously
dangerous and
might mutate to worse.

No, they are not "obviously dangerous" - they are obviously less
affected by the sanitizer. Nothing more, nothing less.

2) I understand that what they use is triclosan, which has
the
ability to disrupt hormones and contribution to a rise in
resistant strains of bacteria.

Triclosan is often used in non-alcoholic sanitizers. It is
effective against many bacteria and fungi, but not all, and not
against viruses or most other pathogens. It is suspected (but
not confirmed) to have adverse effects on health and hormones.
There is no evidence that it has lead to increased resistant
bacteria - but it can't be ruled out.


Better to use alcohol wipes, best to use the common
old-fashioned
soap and water!

Soap and water, used properly, is the best when possible.
Alcohol wipes are of questionable value in many cases - alcohol
sanitizers are a better choice (when you can't wash properly).


The "sanitizers" you mention containing triclosan are
anti-bacterial, not anti-viral and do little for either.

Alcohol is also not particularly useful unless used
appropriately which most people, including hospital workers,
fail to do. It is used in places where frequent hand cleaning
is required because it is less drying or irritating to skin than
soap. But for most of us, soap and water are much more
effective at killing/removing all germs including both bacteria
and viruses. In fact, soap and water are particularly good at
killing viruses by dissolving the lipid layers that hold the
virus together, essentially dissolving them into particles.

Not all virus types have much in the way of lipids in their
shells, which is why alcohol does not affect some viruses.
Still, a major effect of soap and water is physically removing
the pathogens from your hands, and that works regardless of any
resistance to soaps.


I have read nothing about triclosan use resulting in resistant
strains of bacteria. If it did, they would only be resistant to
triclosan which would not be a great loss.


Indeed.

And there is vinegar.

Greg

Mr. Clean

AND most other "kitchen cleaners", like Top Job, etc. are one thing

Sodium Hydroxide

Mix with water... mostly water for anti-microbial, and add a
little bit of body wash one would use in a shower (liquid soap).

So, the Mr. Clean does the bio-boilin' thing and the soap gives you
a bit of soapy water with a low surface tension to get under all that
nasty skin debris and loosen it so you can rinse it off.

Yet another reason why one should use hot water. It is "softer",
which means lower surface tension, which means better cleaning. You
can use distilled water if you want in the mix prep or just bottled
or filtered water, but hot tap water rinse is important as that is
what you use to rinse off what you freed up and is now in suspension
in the soapy lather.

Anyway, the Mr. Clean stuff is green or fluorescent or something so
may scare you, but it really is only Sodium Hydroxide You only need
a few tablespoons per 8 ounce sanitizer squirter full. So 1.5 oz
shower soap, .5 oz Mr. Clean, and 6 oz water.

Here we see Mr. Clean being used on the family dog.

He hates dirt. Just prior to that time point there are two foxy
lady spots.

<https://youtu.be/R6K7YNjn8M4?t=410>

 

[Martin Brown]

On 15/03/2020 17:05, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

I wonder, if a random group of people were exposed to this virus, how
many would actually get infected? I suspect it would be a minority of
the population. If it is very infectuous, but not everyone is
suceptable, the dynamics could be very different from predictions.

The MFU at US immigration today will seriously test this out. If ever
there was a perfect way to ensure transmission of the virus it was to
trap lots of people for long periods and at close proximity indoors.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51895246

That sort of crush pretty much ensures that for every single case on the
input side there will be 6 to 10 new infections before they leave. A
sheep and goats separation based on thermal imaging is the way to go.

WTF did you elect a clueless game show host as President?

Here is a description by a UK medic who caught their Covid-19 in New
York of the experience. It is at the extreme end of a bad dose of flu.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-51886553/uk-doctor-on-recovering-from-grim-coronavirus

Basically the virus is already running wild in the USA but since normal
people cannot afford to get tested there are no good statistics at all.

Any population has to maintain enough genetic diversity that no single
pathogen can wipe it entirely out.

There will be survivors. My money is on the Mormons since they have to
keep 3 months of food supply in store as a part of their religion.

Panic buying in the UK seems to be somewhat store dependent. The worst I
have seen first hand was in Tescos. Shelves stripped bare. The best
behaviour by far was in Aldi where with true German efficiency they had
a strict rationing rule of no more than 4 of anything in your trolley.

It was amusing to see what the panic buying preppers were choosing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[David Brown]

On 16/03/2020 02:35, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain
items (mail, for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be
quite paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used
for sterilising medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands,
however - you'll kill your skin cells before you destroy any
virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and
UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which
is energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is
therefore useful for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the
cells in your body. UVC is higher frequency and lower wavelength
than UVA and UVB - it has more energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the
safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and
gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand
correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have to
be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses. Again I am no expert
and don't have any uvc sources.

Dan

I'd recommend reading <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet> again.

You are right that photons don't have to be quite energetic enough to be
ionising in order to damage DNA or RNA (you don't "kill" viruses,
because they are not alive - you render them non-viable). But high
frequency, energetic photons are required, and the higher the frequency
the better. UVC is higher frequency than UVB, which is higher than UVA,
and UVC therefore does much more damage for the same intensity.

It is meaningless to give a specific safe exposure time without
specifying the intensity of radiation. With high enough intensity, a
few milliseconds of UVC will kill you. With the levels that pass
through the atmosphere (which absorbs almost all UVC from the sun), you
will not cause any harm to your skin.

It is important in any such discussion to make a distinction between the
frequency (and therefore energy per photon) of the radiation, and the
intensity (the number of photons).

 

[David Brown]

On 16/03/2020 02:51, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:35:44 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown
wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain
items (mail, for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be
quite paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used
for sterilising medical equipment. Don't try it on your
hands, however - you'll kill your skin cells before you
destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and
UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiat kion) which
is energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is
therefore useful for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the
cells in your body. UVC is higher frequency and lower wavelength
than UVA and UVB - it has more energy, and is more dangerous.

I must admit I am no expert on UVC. But Wiki has a section on the
safety of uvi which quotes a safety standard for uvc exposure and
gives an 8 hour max exposure intensity. And if I understand
correctly from various other internet sites , UVC does not have
to be strong enough to be ionizing to kill viruses. Again I am no
expert and don't have any uvc sources.

Not trying to be insulting, but your statement about ionizing shows
that you don't understand the issue. The ability of light to ionize
isn't about the strength, it's about the wavelength. That's the
photoelectric effect. Light is in quanta that have a finite amount
of energy which is determined by the wavelength. Too long a
wavelength and there isn't enough energy in the quantum to dislodge
an electron from it's bond with the atom, so no ionization. An
adequately short wavelength gives the quanta enough energy to knock
loose the electrons independent of intensity.

UVC is the shortest wavelength of the UV range and so has the highest
ionizing potential regardless of intensity. That's why they use it
in germicidal applications. It does the job, at least on bacteria.
I don't know how well it works on viruses.

UVC should work well on viruses too. The main effect is damaging DNA or
RNA (some viruses have RNA, others DNA). If the UVC is short enough
wavelength to be ionising, it will break bonds directly. At longer
wavelengths the photons do not have enough energy to knock off electrons
immediately, but they can provide the energy needed to induce other
chemical reactions that break the DNA or RNA.

I suppose theoretically a virus could have a shell that blocks long
wavelength (non-ionising) UVC photons, but it would surprise me greatly
if that were the case in practice. And even then, a higher intensity
source would ensure plenty of photons got through.

 

[David Brown]

On 16/03/2020 05:00, dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 8:50:55 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
On 14/03/2020 18:55, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2020 at 11:50:07 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:


Also, I have a germicidal UV-C lamp which I use on certain items (mail,
for example). Comment?

Sure, use it on items that might be infected (you have to be quite
paranoid to use it on your mail) - UV is commonly used for sterilising
medical equipment. Don't try it on your hands, however - you'll kill
your skin cells before you destroy any virus particles.

My understanding is that UVC is not a problem unlike UVA and UVB.


Your understanding here is wrong.

It is very simple. Any UV (or other bands of radiation) which is
energetic enough to be ionising for DNA and RNA, and is therefore useful
for sterilisation of pathogens, will damage the cells in your body. UVC
is higher frequency and lower wavelength than UVA and UVB - it has more
energy, and is more dangerous.

I stand corrected.

Thanks

It's nice to feel that a conversation in this group has been helpful!

There's been some posts in this thread that I hope will be useful to
people. There is plenty that is still unknown about the virus, and the
best way to deal with it. All we can do is try to pass on good advice,
and sort out the nonsense.