Sunlight as a disinfectant

@eladar said
If there is no released experiment describing how it was carried out, but simply a statement of we failed, then it is propaganda.

There was no SINGLE "released experiment describing how it was carried out" because that huge set of scientific facts about UV were obtained from hundreds of separate experiments from many parts of the worlds thus there is no single experiment that shows all those facts to be true but rather hundreds of them that collectively show those facts to be true.
To show the methodology of how those facts were obtained, I would have to show you the HUNDREDS of released experiment describing how it was carried out, one for small each part of that total set of scientific facts.
So no "propaganda" there; Just expert knowledge being reported.

@humy said
There was no "released experiment describing how it was carried out" because that huge set of scientific facts about UV were obtained from hundreds of separate experiments from many parts of the worlds thus there is no single experiment that shows all those facts to be true but rather hundreds of them that collectively show those facts to be true.
So no "propaganda" there; Just expert knowledge being reported.

The claim was that it was tested and those were the test results.

@eladar said
The claim was that it was tested and those were the test results.

"The claim" from who?
What was "tested"
What was the said "test results"?

@humy said
"The claim" from who?
What was "tested"
What was the said "test results"?

Watch this

YouTube

He describes the airborne experiment at about 3 minutes in.

@eladar said
Watch this

[youtube]E94pqy2rB7g[/youtube]

He describes the airborne experiment at about 4 minutes in.

OK, next question;
Where is the press release of details of the methodology used in that experiment so the real experts can scientific scrutinize it and find out why the said experimental result is apparently so much at odds with what the science says? (at odds with the sunlight part)

@humy

This was given in the other thread

https://www.scribd.com/document/456897616/DHSST

I do not know what the conditions were, I do wonder what the UV rating was, at this point I am trusting the reliability of the person carrying out the tests.

@humy

The sunlight kills Coronavirus thread.

@eladar said
I have provided a scholarly link and a wiki about the topic. I have also provided a link to a video where US scientist experiment results were given.

You on the other provide nothing beyond your personal opinion.

Aw yes, Wiki, the bible that is. Never an inaccuracy.

I haven’t stated an opinion, just that it’s easy to believe what backs your own opinion and disregard the rest.

Lets say sunlight does kill the virus, what does it change? Look at Spain, one of the sunniest countries in Europe but with one of the highest death rates, what does that tell us?

@trev33 said

Lets say sunlight does kill the virus, what does it change? Look at Spain, one of the sunniest countries in Europe but with one of the highest death rates, what does that tell us?

although per capita Belgium so far has a higher C19 death rate per capita than Spain
(see
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/
-it actually gives death rate per million people, not per capita but, obviously, that still allows us to compare per capita )
on the hand, the UK, which is less sunny than Spain, so far has a lower C19 death rate per capita.
So you have a point which is there appears to be no clear statistical evidence exactly where one would expect a lower death rate per capita if sunlight so readily quickly kills the virus and therefore this tells us that there is at least circumstantial evidence against they hypothesis that sunlight very quickly kills the virus.
And although I still wouldn't rush to rule out the possibility just yet that sunlight quickly kills the virus (although logically sunlight must have at least SOME effect, the real question is whether that effect is enough to significantly reduce risk or is that effect very slight?), the fact that there doesn't appear to be noticeable evidence of this where one would generally expect to see noticeable evidence of this if sunlight quickly kills the virus means that is one thing the people pushing that theory need to explain first.
This is one of the reasons, not the only one, why I am very sceptical of the said scientific experiment that claims to prove sunlight can very quickly kill the virus. Full details of the methodology used in this said experiment really needs to be published first so the experts can scrutinize it. Obviously, if or when that happens and it passes such scrutiny and if or when the same results are then repeated independently in other labs and without contradiction in the results, I would accept the conclusion as correct.

In addition, even if sunlight IS later proven to quickly kill the virus, the fact that that sunlight quickly killing the virus has apparently somehow failed to slow the virus and thus reduce the death rate in the more sunny parts of the world implies sunlight would for some reason (what reason?) make little practical difference to the risk from the virus if sunlight was deliberately 'used' (exactly how?) as a weapon against the virus. If that is so then this whole thing is just academic.

@eladar said
Did you see the stats that were given by homeland security?

What, the ones that claim that by going through your underwear at the airport they can stop 95% of Al-Qaida attacks?

Yeah, I wouldn't trust them if they claimed the sky is blue.

@eladar said
  In 1890, the German microbiologist Robert Koch (who had isolated and described the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882), showed that sunlight killed TB bacteria.

Bacterium, virus. Virus, bacterium. Fungus, human.

Fungus and human are more closely related to the TB bacterium than any virus is.

You know nothing about biology if you think going out in the mid-day sun will do anything except make you look like a mad dog (or worse, an Englishman).

@eladar said
Can you site experiments that failed?

Can you cite (sic!) one that succeeded?

On the China virus, not on a prokaryote?

@eladar said
@humy

This was given in the other thread

https://www.scribd.com/document/456897616/DHSST

scribd!? Really? That is your source!?

Jeez, mate, that's even worse than sonhouse's usual phyzz.og. It's lower than "press release" trustworthiness, it's just "nutter ranting at himself".