Any Clue about Science

@deepthought said
No, but you can get a situation where the evidence is unclear and some papers report an effect and others report its absence, so its good to be able to demonstrate that a paper you're quoting isn't the only one to support whatever case you're making with every other one contradicting it. By giving the search terms we can replicate your search. What I was getting at is t ...[text shortened]... is that it produces results like the DHSST report which wouldn't appear in a peer reviewed journal.

Well said.

Especially with this novel virus, nearly all the evidence is incomplete and unclear and/or extrapolation/speculation related to a similar virus strain. Many of the bits of data that are tossed around in the press and on social media stem from a letter to the editor or correspondence with a few patients. There hasn't been enough time for proper controlled experiments/trials and peer review to take place. The NEJM has started writing this at the start of all their COVID-19-related articles:

Case reports should be viewed as observations rather than as recommendations for evaluation or treatment. In the interest of timeliness, these reports are evaluated by in-house editors, with peer review reserved for key points as needed

@wildgrass said
Well said.

Especially with this novel virus, nearly all the evidence is incomplete and unclear and/or extrapolation/speculation related to a similar virus strain. Many of the bits of data that are tossed around in the press and on social media stem from a letter to the editor or correspondence with a few patients. There hasn't been enough time for proper controlled expe ...[text shortened]... ports are evaluated by in-house editors, with peer review reserved for key points as needed [/quote]

So no claims can be made one way or the other.

Although I think it can be considered probable what works to destroy similar viruses also works on covid.

We know traditional disinfectants work on it as a sterilizing agent.

@Eladar
So when will you be injecting Lysol to kill Covid?

@sonhouse

When are you going to say anything useful and not based on politics?

Oh I know that answer, never. You are just fine with New York putting covid patients into nursing homes with the elderly because a Democrat did it. Too bad your hate blinds you about the truth.

@Eladar
Too bad you can't see the truth that Trump ignored ALL advice from several sources in JANUARY. There could have been half the deaths or better if he had gotten off his royal ass and started something only Dr Sara Cody did that early.
But of course your god king can do no wrong, it was EVERYBODIES fault but your god king.

@sonhouse said
@Eladar
Too bad you can't see the truth that Trump ignored ALL advice from several sources in JANUARY. There could have been half the deaths or better if he had gotten off his royal ass and started something only Dr Sara Cody did that early.
But of course your god king can do no wrong, it was EVERYBODIES fault but your god king.

Lol, this is not a politics forum.

@eladar said
So no claims can be made one way or the other.

Although I think it can be considered probable what works to destroy similar viruses also works on covid.

We know traditional disinfectants work on it as a sterilizing agent.

I didn't write "no claims can be made one way or the other."

Reasonable extrapolations can be made, however it is really important to actually read the scientific articles you are posting and make sure they actually back up the claim you are making.

From the Lytle and Sagripanti (J Virol 2005) you posted, the word 'destroy' is not mentioned anywhere. They instead use the term 'inactivate' which they define as 10% live virus remaining. They did not actually measure virus inactivation directly, since they did not have access to some of the nasty stuff like smallpox. The authors use the known values for virus inactivation with UV-C (which is not in sunlight) to reach the conclusion that, by extrapolation, one would expect viruses to be 90% inactivated after 20 min to 1 hour of direct mid-day sunlight. (edit: on surfaces, of course. Not on the inside.)

If you're on a beach playing volleyball, you wouldn't wait 20 minutes in between serves while the virus inactivates. So from a public policy standpoint, I don't know what conclusion could be reasonably drawn.

@wildgrass said
I didn't write "no claims can be made one way or the other."

Reasonable extrapolations can be made, however it is really important to actually read the scientific articles you are posting and make sure they actually back up the claim you are making.

From the Lytle and Sagripanti (J Virol 2005) you posted, the word 'destroy' is not mentioned anywhere. They instead use ...[text shortened]... tivates. So from a public policy standpoint, I don't know what conclusion could be reasonably drawn.

The US experiments report a half life of 2 minutes in summer UV.

I do not know what index rating that would be. I assume high so about 8. Where I live the summer brings a UV rating of over 10 during the summer.

People like to bring up UVC when discussing solar light, I do not know why.

If you decide to play volleyball you need to do so with people you are confident do not have Coronavirus.

Of course if you are playing beach volleyball you would have very little to fear from the coronavirus.

@eladar said
The US experiments report a half life of 2 minutes in summer UV.

I do not know what index rating that would be. I assume high so about 8. Where I live the summer brings a UV rating of over 10 during the summer.

People like to bring up UVC when discussing solar light, I do not know why.

If you decide to play volleyball you need to do so with people you are confident do ...[text shortened]... course if you are playing beach volleyball you would have very little to fear from the coronavirus.

I wasn't bringing up UV-C, just reading the reference you posted. So, in effect you brought it up, which is why everyone else on this thread was discussing UV-C. If you wanted a discussion of sunlight you might have posted a different article.

@wildgrass said
I wasn't bringing up UV-C, just reading the reference you posted. So, in effect you brought it up, which is why everyone else on this thread was discussing UV-C. If you wanted a discussion of sunlight you might have posted a different article.

I was just pointing out that many people like to bring it up and point out it is not in solar light. Seems odd.

As I said earlier, the 2 min half life is direct experimentation, not extrapolation. Sadly exactly what level of uv was never stated.

@wildgrass said
I didn't write "no claims can be made one way or the other."

Reasonable extrapolations can be made, however it is really important to actually read the scientific articles you are posting and make sure they actually back up the claim you are making.

From the Lytle and Sagripanti (J Virol 2005) you posted, the word 'destroy' is not mentioned anywhere. They instead use ...[text shortened]... tivates. So from a public policy standpoint, I don't know what conclusion could be reasonably drawn.

In fairness the integrated radiant flux for coronaviridae D₃₇ figure in the bioweapons paper was 3.9 J/m² (figure from memory) and at the low end of the range. That's for wavelengths of 254 nm and UV-A/B is in the range 280 - 400 nm. So it depends on what the factor is for correcting from that wavelength to actual sunlight. At 125 W/m² (UV level 5), we need it to be less than about 30 for a seconds radiation so the 2 minutes figure from DHSST looks plausible to me. The major caveat here is that it's not at all clear to me that the required multiplier from the amount of UV-C needed to sunlight is that small - I just don't know how biologically significant the other wavelengths are to viruses. Even so the result seems to have explanatory power with regard to the observation that respiratory illness causing viruses are suppressed during the summer months.

@deepthought said
In fairness the integrated radiant flux for coronaviridae D₃₇ figure in the bioweapons paper was 3.9 J/m² (figure from memory) and at the low end of the range. That's for wavelengths of 254 nm and UV-A/B is in the range 280 - 400 nm. So it depends on what the factor is for correcting from that wavelength to actual sunlight. At 125 W/m² (UV level 5), we need it to be le ...[text shortened]... to the observation that respiratory illness causing viruses are suppressed during the summer months.

Fair enough. The DHSST report handles the question a lot more directly, although the 2 min figure is the half life. 90% loss of viability of coronavirus was achieved after 10 minutes direct sun exposure. I don't know if they addressed whether this figure would change based on relative humidity or temperature, but I would think those variables would have some effect on the time. Regarding the "why we get sick in the winter" question, I thought the reasons were: 1) Viruses circulating in droplets tend to linger a lot longer in cold, dry conditions, 2) Vitamin D levels are lower, 3) Constriction of mucus membranes in cold weather reduces their ability to defend against incoming viral particles.

@wildgrass

With a two minute half life, they do not linger very long.

If you watch the video they discuss how heat and humidity shorten the virus viability time.

@Eladar
You would still go LOL if it was. Your god king said to inject disinfectant. Why aren't you doing it? Is there some science behind that? Injecting that is?

@sonhouse said
@Eladar
You would still go LOL if it was. Your god king said to inject disinfectant. Why aren't you doing it? Is there some science behind that? Injecting that is?

You really cannot get away from politics can you.

You need to move to New York and into a Nursing Home so Cuomo can put you out of your misery.