What are you even talking about? No one said his personal experience doesn’t matter. Just that it’s one persons personal experience.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BigWoof31
- Start date
- Status
muffler dragon
Bien. Bien chiludo.
We use high intensity lamps to cure ("dry" in layman's terms) 100% solids coatings through a photochemical reaction.
As for my regret concerning the points raised with this fantastic technology, it can be likened to an ultrasonic bath for cleaning/sterilization. UV light is great for germs, because it fks with the DNA; however, it has to saturate the germs. It's not a quick swipe of a wand, because the handheld bulbs are not high intensity enough.
Which leads back to my statement (which is correlated with hospital protocols): the best path for sterilization is to clean surfaces on a regular basis.
Your whore mouth...
I could have sworn I attached that myself.
Righteous!
Upvote
0
Taosman
Your Cousin In New Mexxico
Cleaning surfaces is only worthwhile if someone already has Covid 19 in the home. Perhaps you're familiar with the term "Fomites"? The Covid virus is principally spread through the vapor of the infected. Fomites are low on the transmission ladder.
Exaggerated Risk of Transmission
"In my opinion, the chance of transmission through
inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances
where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the
surface, and someone else touches that surface soon
after the cough or sneeze (within 1–2 h)."
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(20)30561-2.pdf
Basically, the risk of acquiring Covid is very low from inanimate objects(fomites).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is good information, but as with everything else, I'll add my usual grain of salt.
This compares the current epidemic to flu outbreaks that spanned winter months when schools were in session. Schools were closed very early on during this outbreak, so what it would have looked like is unknown. What is clear and should be non-controversial (but might be anyway) is that our sensationalist media would make quite a meal of 21k Coronavirus hospitalizations among school-age children, whereas I didn't even know that happened during the recent flu outbreak. If it bleeds, it leads I guess.
The question this begs is, what will it look like when the kids go back? The good news is, we may have better information soon. Scandinavian and Asian countries that have year-round school have already sent the kids back. We'll have data about them soon.
There is some reason for optimism here, and definitely some notes of caution as well. Both come from a recent report from George Rutherford of the UCSF School of Medicine.
As for the optimism, he cites recent reports that confirm the fact that young children get the disease less easily, transmit it less frequently, and get seriously ill far less often. The study from Iceland actually showed zero young children testing positive for the disease. His own data, shown below, indicate zero deaths among children in Alameda and San Francisco Counties.
The Icelandic report is interesting in that it confirms the report posted by @BB73 that kids 10-17 are as likely as adults to transmit the disease.
Even more interestingly, he cites a study done back in May that shows I was mistaken when I said that they don't know why children contract and transmit the disease less than adults:
While not conclusive, this indicates at least a good working theory on the reason. Young children have significantly less ACE-2 gene expression than other age groups. The reason this is significant is that this would lead to fewer receptors for the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Also interesting is that children 10-17 lie in between the younger kids and adults on this graph, yet show no difference in contraction and transmission of the disease thus far. This indicates that there is not a gradual effect, but rather a threshold beneath which there is protection and above which there is not.
While the above is very encouraging, it seems the news is always mixed where this disease is concerned. While young children are obviously far less likely than others to contract or transmit the disease, there is data that suggest they MIGHT not be going unscathed. In a pattern that appears to show a one-month lag to incidence of Covid cases, there has been an increase in the number of kids diagnosed with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C). This is concerning, but I would not call it alarming for two reasons: 1) This is a correlation only, and there are several working theories about things not related to Covid that might be causing the increase, and 2) Even with the increase, MIS-C is still an extremely rare condition.
In short, even though the news about MIS-C is bad, it might not be related to Covid, and even if it is, it affects very few kids and there is very little chance that keeping young children out of school would have much effect on the numbers anyway. We have seldom ever considered closing schools due to flu outbreaks, which is something that is absolutely transmitted in schools in large numbers; the rise in MIS-C, even if it proves to be Covid related, is not by itself a reason to keep them home.
I remain in the camp that we need to keep monitoring the situation rather than decide now whether schools should stay closed this year, at least for kids 5-9.
Upvote
0
OK but I'm gonna need you to go ahead and see into the future on what I should do with my 5 year old bc I'm stressing the fuck out.
Upvote
0
Crump's brother
Moxahala Park Carnie/ Rehoboth Strangler
Shoot me an email and I can get your little guy on my online Spanish curriculum once school starts.
Upvote
0
Maybe if you get one of those coal miner hats and put a UV light in the top, it can protect you when someone sneezes on you.
No?
Huh. Well, I like the UVC light idea, but given its used almost.nowhere right now, nevermind elder care facilities, meat processing facilities, or whatever you think the high transmission environments are, not super sure how its going to turn the tide here.
Upvote
0
On a personal level, I'd say go ahead and enroll the kids, but don't tell them you've done so. Then if things look bad on Day 1, just don't send them. I've been homeschooling my son while working a full-time job for the last 5 years; this year will be the 6th. On line curricula make it incredibly easy these days. This is obviously going to be easier for older kids, but do what you gotta do.
Having said that... Yes, I'm dodging the question. All I do is report what I hear. If I had a crystal ball, I'd be using it to figure out where Tuimoloau will be next year at this time.
Upvote
0
sparcboxbuck
What happened to my ¤cash?
I thought that BP had already determined that he’s redshirting...
Upvote
0
Taosman
Your Cousin In New Mexxico
I don't know about turning any tide. But it just makes sense when looking at the disease impact in schools. Not just Covid but the flu and colds. Obviously there will be some sort of installation process but I've seen some "replacement" bulbs that would be a cheap way of installing UV lights. I think the technology will get a boost from the pandemic. I think we'll see many technologies get a pandemic boost. Considering how old the tech is it would seem it's time is now.
And this just now.....
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Health-Care/UV-sanitizer-lamp-zaps-viruses-but-not-skin-maker-says2
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Home school b/c in-person school this year will be miserable especially for a child’s first learning experience.
Upvote
0
- Status