Fear and Loathing, a Rat Flu Odyssey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

Polyass time

---

yup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

no its yur right to poliassfuck rant till your keyboard breaks
its where it goes within the rules, guidelines, decorum or whateavarz, community that seems to be an issue to some

---

With that attitude, the Viet Nam war would still be going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rideski

Unfortunately some studies seem to be saying normal temps you would cook meat to are not sufficient to kill rat flu. Apparently surviving up to boiling. I hope it might die with the time frame needed to package and ship to stores and then get purchased.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/scie...erature-threat

---

60 C is not really a high temperature. High enough to kill some corona viruses, but most say 70 C for this one. That's not really "almost boiling" to my mind, but I guess if it's hotter than your coffee then those 10 degrees may seem significant. 70 C dry air has been shown to be effective at disinfecting masks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/h...ronavirus.html

ETA: 60 C = 140 F, 70 C = 158 F

How does that matter? The virus can't be inside the steak only on the outside, which does get cooked much hotter than 212

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

How does that matter? The virus can't be inside the steak only on the outside, which does get cooked much hotter than 212

---

Very true. However, now is probably an even worse time than usual to order a hamburger medium-rare.

I'll rather succumb to rat flu than grill my steaks well done.

"Give me medium-rare, or give me death." -Patrick Henry... probably

Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

Very true. However, now is probably an even worse time than usual to order a hamburger medium-rare.

---

is there another way to order one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

More on the droplet vs aerosol discussion. Ten people, out of 91 potential, in a restaurant were infected if they sat at the same table as the infectious person or sat at tables directly in line with AC ducts spreading larger droplets. None of the staff or people sitting at other tables were infected by small aerosolized droplets.

It's another data point suggesting properly used masks offer protection. The researches advise "better temperature-monitoring surveillance, increasing the distance between tables, and improving ventilation." Which, FWIW, are things the TGR crowd here proposed some time ago back when Rat Flu was just a worry dream. #notallpolyass

Attachment 325839

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

---

One of the important features of masks is that they help keep your sinuses from drying out, which would make you more susceptible to all kinds of crap. Drying out is why airplanes have some of the cleanest air (exchanged 20-30 times per hour according to Alaska, plus HEPA filters) and yet air travel seems to spread disease anyway (minimal humidity in planes). Wearing anything over your mouth and nose helps with that. AC vents have a similar effect...

A week ago or so I read an article that seemed to suggest ingesting cv-19 on food was not a big deal, as the stomach killed the virus. It was inhaling or wiping the virus in your eyes or nose that were bad news. Just the messenger and what do I know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

na what bothers me is dog stoke and good shit in the padded room gittin buried by repeated fuckin polasshattery that I thought sadverse and the powers that be decided should go in a special fuckin snowflake poo flingin home for shit
and don't let the fact that my old man boomer ass has a better quiver than you change that

---

Scroll down. Click on you dog and fish stoke all you want. Go ahead and ignore this thread.

Jesus you sound old these days.

Always complaining

Since when did we ask for moderators around here?

Maybe check out Alpine Zone. Sounds like your speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

How does that matter? The virus can't be inside the steak only on the outside, which does get cooked much hotter than 212

---

I would think so, too. The hamburger seems like an uncommon example where contaminants can be in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

More on the droplet vs aerosol discussion. Ten people, out of 91 potential, in a restaurant were infected if they sat at the same table as the infectious person or sat at tables directly in line with AC ducts spreading larger droplets. None of the staff or people sitting at other tables were infected by small aerosolized droplets.

It's another data point suggesting properly used masks offer protection. The researches advise "better temperature-monitoring surveillance, increasing the distance between tables, and improving ventilation." Which, FWIW, are things the TGR crowd here proposed some time ago back when Rat Flu was just a worry dream. #notallpolyass

Attachment 325839

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

---

Does not specify how long after they swabbed the ventilation system, nor if the exhaust was to outside vs recirc or what the recirc percentage was, nor the fresh vs total ach. There is no indication if the closest exhaust had a return to a central unit that would have put recirced PM back out through the farther ac vents. Therefor you cannot estimate particulate matter residence time or mixing. They do indicate that the general airflow map didn't promote mixing between the area where people were infected vs where people didn't get infected.

Any aerosols in the ventilation system would not be expected to fall out nor would any virus be expected to be alive after 2 days on ducts (or 1 day on filters) much less whenever these investigators showed up to swab the vents. It is unsurprising their 6 swabs showed nothing. There were not major aerosolizing events known to have occurred (patient was not symptomatic). They documented 2 interfamily transmissions to have taken place in the restaurant (and speculated it could have been up to 5, but could also have been intrafamily transmissions).

That study does absolutely nothing to show that airborne (or fomite) transmission doesn't happen in asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients.

They confirmed what is thought, that the PRIMARY mechanism of transmission is extended exposure via droplets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

A week ago or so I read an article that seemed to suggest ingesting cv-19 on food was not a big deal, as the stomach killed the virus. It was inhaling or wiping the virus in your eyes or nose that were bad news. Just the messenger and what do I know?

---

That is certainly the prevailing theory. I still don’t understand the part where if it’s on your hands and you touch your eyes nose mouth, bad. But if it’s on food, you can put it in your mouth and no problem.

That said, I suppose dork is right that most food is externally hotter than the normal 140 for internal cooking doneness. Still gross to think about since we know it’s all over the meat packing plants. That aside, I’m still not believing the notion that it will die on produce, and that touching your mouth with it is no biggie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

is there another way to order one?

---

Unless I grind it myself at home, I cook all ground meat thoroughly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

A week ago or so I read an article that seemed to suggest ingesting cv-19 on food was not a big deal, as the stomach killed the virus. It was inhaling or wiping the virus in your eyes or nose that were bad news. Just the messenger and what do I know?

---

Doctors were once thoroughly convinced that stomach acid killed bacteria, too. Turns out a lot of ulcers are caused by bacterial infection. How you gonna get food to your stomach and not leave any traces in your breathing holes, anyway? I think you got that bit from a fake source the Russians have been pushing.

Still, most prepared food is hot, so most is probably safe. But I'm not buying salads or cold subs right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Doctors were once thoroughly convinced that stomach acid killed bacteria, too. Turns out a lot of ulcers are caused by bacterial infection. How you gonna get food to your stomach and not leave any traces in your breathing holes, anyway? I think you got that bit from a fake source the Russians have been pushing.

Still, most prepared food is hot, so most is probably safe. But I'm not buying salads or cold subs right now.

---

I’m only eating by shoving sterilized tubes down my throat right to the stomach. No contamination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dee Hubbs

Thanks for this. How do I drop a pin on the map to show where I am?
Should I eat this?
Attachment 312568
It’s okay if it’s cooked right?

---

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

One of the important features of masks is that they help keep your sinuses from drying out, which would make you more susceptible to all kinds of crap. Drying out is why airplanes have some of the cleanest air (exchanged 20-30 times per hour according to Alaska, plus HEPA filters) and yet air travel seems to spread disease anyway (minimal humidity in planes). Wearing anything over your mouth and nose helps with that. AC vents have a similar effect...

---

I do get that mouth cover prevents spread of droplets, but as far as your point that masks can help protect the wearer of the mask, isn't that point kind of offset if the person doesn't have eye pro?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rideski

That is certainly the prevailing theory. I still don’t understand the part where if it’s on your hands and you touch your eyes nose mouth, bad. But if it’s on food, you can put it in your mouth and no problem.

That said, I suppose dork is right that most food is externally hotter than the normal 140 for internal cooking doneness. Still gross to think about since we know it’s all over the meat packing plants. That aside, I’m still not believing the notion that it will die on produce, and that touching your mouth with it is no biggie.

---

Get it in your mouth and it can readily infect cells. We know it can infect a cells other than the respiratory epithelial cells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deebased

Imperial College says no vaccine in the near term.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-health-expert


crazier still

Chelsea, Mass is well on their way to herd immunity.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/...e-coronavirus/

---

Sounds like more of a warning than a likelihood. Just a week ago someone said they were 80% sure they had a vaccine that would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klauss

I do get that mouth cover prevents spread of droplets, but as far as your point that masks can help protect the wearer of the mask, isn't that point kind of offset if the person doesn't have eye pro?

---

The mask offers some protection to the wearer IF the mask is effective at filtering incoming particles AND the mask doesn't allow infectious particles to soak through a damp mask to the interior side where they get on the lips/face/etc.

Eyes are a potential entry point, but far less likely vs air forcibly inhaled into the respiratory tract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by klauss

I do get that mouth cover prevents spread of droplets, but as far as your point that masks can help protect the wearer of the mask, isn't that point kind of offset if the person doesn't have eye pro?

---

No. Would be better with eye protection, but since viral load matters you're better off stopping as much as possible. Further, breathing dry air dries your nose and throat, and you keep breathing through there. The amount of air that passes right next to your tissue in your nose and throat is probably 100x higher than what passes close by your eyes--more in still air? But sure, throw on some sunglasses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Does not specify how long after they swabbed the ventilation system, nor if the exhaust was to outside vs recirc or what the recirc percentage was, nor the fresh vs total ach. There is no indication if the closest exchaust had a return to a central unit that would have put recirced PM back out through the farther ac vents. Therefor you cannot estimate particulate matter residence time or mixing. They do indicate that the general airflow map didn't promote mixing between the area where people were infected vs where people didn't get infected.

Any aerosols in the ventilation system would not be expected to fall out nor would any virus be expected to be alive after 2 days much less whenever these investigators showed up to swab the vents. It is unsurprising their 6 swabs showed nothing. There were not major aerosolizing events known to have occured, perhaps there were minor ones? They documented 2 interfamily transmissions to have taken place in the restaurant (and speculated it could have been up to 5, but could also have been intrafamily transmissions).

That study does absolutely nothing to show that airborne (or fomite) transmission doesn't happen in asymptomatic/presymptomatic patients.

They confirmed what is thought, that the PRIMARY mechanism of transmission is extended exposure via droplets.

---

Agreed and they say as much in the study "Virus transmission in this outbreak cannot be explained by droplet transmission alone." There's another study looking at 3,300 known infections and none of the people were infected outdoors.

WRT "It is unsurprising their 6 swabs showed nothing," there's more and more evidence indicating time (like radiation, virus viability has a half-life) and dose is significant in terms of severity which seems to be why health care workers can be so badly affected.

Regardless, it wouldn't make sense to say the virus can't be transmitted via aerosolized droplets or fomites or outdoors but if the goal is to bring R-naught < 1, or just protect ourselves, focusing on the most significant modes of transmission is a good first best baseline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiVerse

Agreed and they say as much in the study. There's another study looking at 3,300 known infections and none of the people were infected outdoors.

Regardless, it wouldn't make sense to say the virus can't be transmitted via aerosolized droplets or outdoors but if the goal is to bring R-naught < 1, or just protect ourselves, focusing on the most significant modes of transmission is a good a first best baseline.

---

I agree with respect to limiting transmission outside of healthcare environments the focus should be on droplet spread which we've known to be the primary mode since very early on.

I absolutely believe it can be transmitted via aerosol and probably via fomite, but it is most likely uncommon outside of healthcare environments or very extended exposure scenarios.

This study is a good read from UNMC Can you link the 3300 study?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

I agree with respect to limiting transmission outside of healthcare environments. Can you link the 3300 study?

I absolutely believe it can be transmitted via aerosol, but it is most likely uncommon outside of healthcare environments.

This study is a good read from UNMC

---

Why not a business or school hallway or elevator?