- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
23 Apr 20
@eladar saidYeah, I saw that last week. I was waiting for someone else to post it. Sounds like good news, except sun has been very limited here in Pa the last couple weeks ( it snowed just the other day).
https://news.yahoo.com/[WORD TOO LONG].html
Looks like the government now backs what I have neen saying all along.
23 Apr 20
@joe-shmo saidYeah, sometimes flu season goes into May. In any case, looks like the changing of the season will put a crimp into the spread, as long as people go outside.
Yeah, I saw that last week. I was waiting for someone else to post it. Sounds like good news, except sun has been very limited here in Pa the last couple weeks ( it snowed just the other day).
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
24 Apr 20
@eladar saidI remember saying "It might not have an effect", but I'm not knowledgeable on the specifics of virology.
I wonder if any of the knowledgeable people around here who said heat, sunlight and humidity has no effect on this new different virus are willing to admit their ignorance?
I doubt it. All we have here are ignorant alarmists who have no original thoughts.
24 Apr 20
@eladar saidNot really. You were predicting that the virus would cease to be transmitted during the summer. What this document is talking about is decontamination of surfaces. There are two problems. It's no use indoors. If you look at page 9 in the Preliminary Data Study, they state that the half life of the virus in simulated sunlight is about 2 to 3 minutes with a 90% decrease in 9 to 10 minutes. This means that surfaces outside are much less of a transmission risk. It does not mean that aerosol transmission is impossible, if someone coughs and you breathe in a droplet then it will have been in sunlight for seconds not minutes. So, while it does mean that the risks are lower in summer, they cannot rule out person to person transmission. The document does not draw conclusions about exiting lock down.
https://news.yahoo.com/[WORD TOO LONG].html
Looks like the government now backs what I have neen saying all along.
@deepthought saidYou claimed UVB sunlight would not kill corona virus because your experts said so.
Not really. You were predicting that the virus would cease to be transmitted during the summer. What this document is talking about is decontamination of surfaces. There are two problems. It's no use indoors. If you look at page 9 in the Preliminary Data Study, they state that the half life of the virus in simulated sunlight is about 2 to 3 minutes with a 90% decreas ...[text shortened]... out person to person transmission. The document does not draw conclusions about exiting lock down.
Get over it, you were wrong. Your experts were wrong.
Our data says a half life of 2 seconds for airborne particles.
24 Apr 20
@eladar saidAt no point did I make such a claim. Find the post where I said that UVB sunlight would not kill SARS-Cov-2. I did dispute that vitamin D could be an important factor based on the ICNARC breakdown of ICU patients for covid-19 compared with non-covid-19 viral pneumonia. But that is a different thing.
You claimed UVB sunlight would not kill corona virus because your experts said so.
Get over it, you were wrong. Your experts were wrong.
Our data says a half life of 2 seconds for airborne particles.
The closest I came to commenting on UVB in the last month or so is in the 5th post down on page 4 of this thread: Thread 184792.
On page 10 of the report it clearly says that the virus survival time in aerosol in sunlight is of the order of 2 minutes. The reference to virus containing droplets on steel is on page 7.
https://www.scribd.com/document/456897616/DHSST
@DeepThought
Either the video requires updating or the article does. I see the 2 to 3 minutes.
The vitamin d thing, the tables supported me.
26 Apr 20
@eladar saidAnd about time!
Looks like the government now backs what I have neen saying all along.
Why didn't those morons listen to you straight away?