Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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.

g10xrJ7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Brian Kennedy
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 by Brian Kennedy
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 by Der Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

three-monkeys-704355.jpg

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 post
Share on other sites
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 by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...