Ivanhoe Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/mouthwash-can-kill-covid-19-in-30-seconds-study/ Quote Mouthwash can kill COVID-19 within 30 seconds of exposure in a laboratory, a new UK study revealed. The preliminary findings — the result of research conducted at Cardiff University — indicate that over-the-counter mouthwashes containing at least 0.07 percent cetypyridinium chloride (CPC) showed “promising signs” of being able to destroy the virus when exposed in a lab setting. Scientists conducting the study mimicked the conditions of a person’s nasal and oral passages in a test tube, and used common mouthwash brands including Dentyl and Listerine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 (edited) LMAO. Edited November 18, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said: https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/mouthwash-can-kill-covid-19-in-30-seconds-study/ Duh....It's an alcohol. It strips away the lipid coating and breaks down the RNA strains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_inactivation#Inactivation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 A rapid at-home covid-19 test — for under $50 — just got FDA approval Quote The California biotechnology company’s single-use home test kit, which it expects to sell for less than $50, requires a prescription from a doctor. As winter approaches and infections have surged in most states, the at-home test will allow people who are possibly infected to not have to go into clinics or hospitals to get tested, potentially spreading a virus that has already killed more than 247,000 people in the United States. Unlike rapid antigen tests, which experts warn can be unreliable, the kit will test genetic material in a method similar to the laboratory tests that have become the standard for detecting the virus. After swirling the nasal specimen into a solution, home-testers plug the vial into a portable, battery-operated device, which uses a light to indicate the test result within 30 minutes. A positive test result can be generated in as few as 11 minutes. The company said that when it compared its test to one of the most reliable FDA-authorized tests out now, it agreed with positive and negative results 94.1 percent and 98 percent of the time respectively in a study of more than 100 people in California. A clinical trial in Florida is ongoing. Lucira said on its website that the company’s at-home test relies on molecular nucleic acid amplification technology, which is designed to detect whether an individual is shedding the coronavirus that causes covid-19. Before the pandemic, the manufacturer was focused on developing similar technology for an at-home flu test. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/18/home-test-coronavirus-covid-fda/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Fredriksson Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: What about a nice smoothie? Stuart, is your inbox full? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 I've cleaned some clutter out, do let me know if it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 18, 2020 Share Posted November 18, 2020 Ahem Quote Major Study Finds Masks Don’t Reduce COVID-19 Infection Rates A high-quality, large-scale Danish study finds no evidence that wearing a face mask significantly minimizes people’s risk of contracting COVID-19. The randomized-control trial found no statistically significant difference in coronavirus infection rates between mask-wearers and non-mask-wearers. In fact, according to the data, mask usage may actually increase the likelihood of infection. “The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use,” the authors summarized their results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 But people who feel are quite certain of the science and they feel that masks show you care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargrunt6 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 I still think they are good for preventing other diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Bacterial infections, or things spread by actual droplets, sure....but thats with proper use/infection control protocol, etc. Same goes with gloves or condoms. if you use the same one and cross contaminate everything...the protective measure doesn't / Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Zeitgeist Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 6 hours ago, Jeff said: Ahem Ahem, indeed. The only thing your post does is show once again that even nine months into the pandemic, you're still too lazy to read the actual studies behind the misrepresenting blog articles and/or too dumb to understand their implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kennedy Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) Only data point I personally have is that I live in a neighborhood in Oakland that’s pretty middle/upper class but about a mile away from a wide variety of sketchy hoods and so far we have zero infections (not 100 percent sure but I’m pretty convinced that I’d know). We are all masked up and pretty careful in terms of social distancing and what not, and seems to have worked so far. Our neighborhood is basically an old-school near-suburb (houses but they’re all right next to each other, etc) Edited November 19, 2020 by Brian Kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Jeff said: Ahem point already made by Zeitgeist Edited November 19, 2020 by RETAC21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Brian Kennedy said: Only data point I personally have is that I live in a neighborhood in Oakland that’s pretty middle/upper class but about a mile away from a wide variety of sketchy hoods and so far we have zero infections (not 100 percent sure but I’m pretty convinced that I’d know). We are all masked up and pretty careful in terms of social distancing and what not, and seems to have worked so far. Our neighborhood is basically an old-school near-suburb (houses but they’re all right next to each other, etc) This may not be because of the masks only, but because infection rates started out low and were then burned out, for example. Take away is that it's not only masks, but the whole assortment of measures that will contain spreading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Good news. Dining at the French Laundry in Napa gives you immunity from COVID prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kennedy Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Simon Tan said: Good news. Dining at the French Laundry in Napa gives you immunity from COVID prosecution. Newsom was always an asshole and has completely shot his credibility. The dinner is unlikely to be as much of a super-spreading event as most recent Trump events were. Edited November 19, 2020 by Brian Kennedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanhoe Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 8 hours ago, Brian Kennedy said: Only data point I personally have is that I live in a neighborhood in Oakland that’s pretty middle/upper class but about a mile away from a wide variety of sketchy hoods and so far we have zero infections (not 100 percent sure but I’m pretty convinced that I’d know). We are all masked up and pretty careful in terms of social distancing and what not, and seems to have worked so far. Our neighborhood is basically an old-school near-suburb (houses but they’re all right next to each other, etc) My data point is quite the opposite. The small city I live in is a God, Guns, and Guts type community*, with a lot of noncompliance with mask wearing. Once you factor out the cases and deaths from the state prison (both inmates and employees), the rates here are very low compared to the progressive paradise cities. * Open carry is occasionally seen at the strip malls, with no fusses. Of course, the risk of mentioning someone open carrying is that you'll get sucked into receiving a 10 minute monologue about the gun, the holster, politics, or whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 8 hours ago, RETAC21 said: point already made by Zeitgeist I wouldn't know, he's on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Jeff said: I wouldn't know, he's on ignore. To sum it up: The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Zeitgeist Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeff said: I wouldn't know, he's on ignore. *lol* 😅 That's OK, can't have any actual information get in the way of his malignant agitprop. Edited November 19, 2020 by Der Zeitgeist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Jeff said: I wouldn't know, he's on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Zeitgeist Posted November 19, 2020 Author Share Posted November 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, MiloMorai said: He hasn't been that quiet, unfortunately. Third most prolific poster in this thread. Almost all of it disinformation, hyperpartisan drivel and Chinese bioweapon conspiracies from day one. Quality TankNet Moderator content with a quarter million dead to back it up. Nice going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiloMorai Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Selective info gathering and dissipation, be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted November 19, 2020 Share Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Jeff said: I wouldn't know, he's on ignore. Why ever would that be the case...? 🤔 1 hour ago, MiloMorai said: 2 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said: Edited November 19, 2020 by rmgill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitflegal Posted November 20, 2020 Share Posted November 20, 2020 6 hours ago, RETAC21 said: To sum it up: The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection. During the study period, authorities did not recommend face mask use outside hospital settings and mask use was rare in community settings (22). This means that study participants' exposure was overwhelmingly to persons not wearing masks. It's a well designed and executed study to look into whether surgical mask wearing protects the wearer in an environment with social distancing measures but where the average person is not wearing a mask. What it demonstrates is that in an environment where people are generally socially distancing but not wearing masks that surgical masks changed at the least every day do not protect the wearer from contracting Covid. That's what it was designed to investigate and that's all the conclusions that can be drawn. It does not say that if everyone in the community wore a mask that either there would be no protection or that there would be protection; it specifically doesn't answer that because the study was not designed to answer that and the conditions did not exist to analyze that data. You could make a hypothesis off of this that mask wearing doesn't protect the wearer from the virus unless the combination of spreader and recipient attenuating viral transmission crosses a threshold where infection is functionally reduced but the study does not contain data to demonstrate that or refute that. I should probably stop being surprised at how many self proclaimed internet lawyers/doctors/virologists/USN SEALS/data experts there are out there who use any publication to support the beliefs that they know nothing about but God it's more of a pandemic than Covid. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now