SHBR

I'm on the other side of the planet.

Masks are required here in shared spaces. (still on sale in the corner store)
So yes, its best if you have a lot of masks, I've used 5 or so in the past month if it makes YOU feel better.

SHBR

Depends, it would seem there are some souls that don't have a heart or a home.

I'm thankful I have almost everything I need and most of what I want.

Cheers.

livedarklions

Most aero method of hauling 50 rolls of toilet paper.

indyfabz

"A heart. A brain. A home. Some nuy-ve. We're off to see the wizard. The wonderful Wizard of Ozzzzzzz!"

Road Fan

These questions are for anyone in the thread or not who can provide some useful information on these points.

The last paragraph in the Thread Starter's original quote raises some interesting and IMO constructive questions. So far ethanol-based sanitizers have been recommended in the news media - at least at the outset they were plentiful in the retail markets. It does not stand to reason that only ethanol is effective (I had a chemistry class many decades ago, but I actually remembered something).

1. You're using isopropanol (aka isopropyl alcohol), so I wonder if commercially packaged rubbing alcohol is ok? Does ingestion have to be prevented? I have seen some info (my local Nextdoor) that homemade antiseptics can be effective and can be "OK," using hydrogen peroxide among other things.
2. There are an infinite number of possible chemicals that are technically alcohol. Is there any medical reason to prefer one alcohol or antiseptic type over another, beyond practicalities like speed of activation, percent effectiveness, cost, aesthetics, and availability?
3. Would the minimum effective concentrations be the same as for commercial products?

Thanks a million for sharing your expertise!

Jicafold

This is what the OP and the UCLA physician, Dr. Otto Yang, has neglected to mention about masks. It's the sick who should be wearing them.

diverge52rider

I disagree even if the jury may still be out on this. It's doing more harm than good telling people there's NO CHANCE of aerosol transmission.

Michael Osterholm was on a recent podcast with Joe Rogan and also disagreed with this assessment -- the high rate of transmission across the world indicates there's a high possibility of this and also explains why people stuck in their cabins on cruise ships with recirculating air kept getting infected.

Keep in mind the common flu can also be spread by aerosol, so how is this any different? Google "aerosol coronavirus" and you'll find the recent U.S. study that showed mimicked virus droplets can remain in the air for several hours.

livedarklions

Both Osterholm and Yang agree that wearing masks in public probably isn't helpful, so I'm not sure where this matters too much to our individual decisions. I assume that close proximity will likely lead to some sort of incidental unintentional contact and should therefore be avoided. I think that's consistent with both.

Litespud

isopropanol is a widely used disinfectant. I use regular store-bought rubbing alcohol, which is usually 70% isopropanol. It also comes in 91%, but 70% is the more effective disinfectant. I usually have a few bottles lying around, as it’s good for cleaning/degreasing car- and bike parts. Good luck finding some in a store these days, but if you do, you’re good to go. I would avoid ingesting it - I’m sure it’s not good for you, but it evaporates away pretty quickly so there shouldn’t be any residue hanging around

indyfabz

My personal office supply since I am basically the only one who comes to this office these days.

JanMM

Information from CDC on how to protect yourself or others from covid-19. Including what to use for hand and surface cleaning and how to prepare cleaning/disinfectant solutions.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...revention.html

Litespud

Fair enough, but I don't think we know if those cruise ship passengers were infected while sequestered in their cabins - given that the incubation period is variable, and can be as long as two weeks, it's as likely that they were exposed and infected pre-sequestration, and only developed symptoms later. I confess that I'm not up on the fine details and timing of the various cruise ship episodes, so it's possible that my suppositions are incorrect

JohnDThompson 

The chance of aerosol transmission is not zero, but it is very low. The simple surgical masks you see most people wearing do not protect against aerosol transmission. The N95 respirator masks can protect against aerosol transmission, but unless you have been professionally trained and fitted for an N95 mask, chances are it won't be any more effective than a simple surgical mask.

Daniel4

Only the wipes will be effective because the Coronavirus is not a bacteria.

And furthermore, 0.1% will survive meaning the survivors will be superbugs remaining on surfaces.

Best is to wash and rinse.

DeadGrandpa

I would subscribe to that thread.

indyfabz

The sanitizer is 70% alcohol. Guess the CDC is misrepresenting that it may be helpful. Thanks.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...revention.html

Take steps to protect yourself

Clean your hands often

• Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds especially after you have been in a public place, or after blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
• If soap and water are not readily available, use a hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Cover all surfaces of your hands and rub them together until they feel dry.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.

Jicafold

That's not true either.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sanitizer.html

CDC recommendations reflect the important role of hand hygiene for preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings for a wide range of pathogens. The ability of hand hygiene, including hand washing or the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers to prevent infections is related to reductions in the number of viable pathogens that transiently contaminate the hands. Hand washing mechanically removes pathogens, while laboratory data demonstrate that 60% ethanol and 70% isopropanol, the active ingredients in CDC-recommended alcohol-based hand sanitizers, inactivates viruses that are genetically related to, and with similar physical properties as, the 2019-nCoV.

While the exact role of direct and indirect spread of coronaviruses between people that could be reduced by hand hygiene is unknown at this time, hand hygiene for infection prevention is an important part of the U.S. response to the international emergence of COVID-19.

CDC recommends the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers with greater than 60% ethanol or 70% isopropanol as the preferred form of hand hygiene in healthcare settings, based upon greater access to hand sanitizer. Health care providers who use alcohol-based hand sanitizers as part of their hand hygiene routine can inform patients that they are following CDC guidelines.

Litespud

Like I said earlier - Conoraviruses are enveloped viruses. They have an outer lipid membrane which is essential for infectivity. Any disinfectant that kills bacteria (and they pretty much all do this by disrupting the bacterial cell membrane) will also render coronaviruses inactive.

Maelochs

Seems to me that hand sanitizer is really only useful in places where soap and water are not available.

Some people seem to think ti is magic, and waste it when a simple trip to a nearby sink with soap would work just as well.

But ... people can be idiots, and even people who think they are very smart completely reject the information provided by other people who are really smart ....

This cracks me up. If a person who had never ridden a bicycle, never owned a bicycle, and had never even been to a bicycle shop came here and started telling us we didn't know about bikes, we'd all laugh.

Yet when people who have spent years learning about and studying viruses come here and tell us what they know ... suddenly some of us are expert virologists.

Go ahead ... Be That Guy. The rest of us are rolling on the floor .....

Kapusta

A study just published in the New England Journal of Medicine finds that This Coronavirus DOES remain airborne and active in aerosol form for a period of time.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2004973

Jicafold

Some of us might actually be an expert virologist, or a rocket scientist, or a brain surgeon, or an insurance adjuster if your bicycle shop burns down...we don't just all ride bikes.

livedarklions

That's scary--the half-life figures on various surfaces are also really long.

All of this stuff is based on very quick and dirty study by necessity because we're trying to shoot at a moving target, so I tend to tune out anything that starts with "this is a settled question" at this point. There's certainly a world of difference between that and the OP.

Maelochs

Well .... unless you have evidence (you know how those stupid scientists work---no data, no conclusion) then all you have is an hypothesis. Yeah, sure .... some of us might be whatever.

But the people who are arguing with actual experts .... and are not providing any data themselves ... and are saying "I think ... " or "I don't believe ...' unsupported by any data .... whatever. Pick a fight elsewhere if that is what you want, and believe whatever makes you happy.

When all the people who can demonstrate that they have studied virology, contagion, whatever for decades say something, and some random guy says, "Naw, I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night, so I know better .... " Choose whatever you like.

They will never take our freedom ... but they might have to bury some of us prematurely because we didn't use reason.

livedarklions

OK, I'll bite. Any actual virologists on this thread?

I'm certainly not one. Are you?

I am, however, a lawyer who has been damned amused by some of the crazy crap posted as "the law" by self-appointed experts on BF.

Maelochs

EDIT: I went back and reread the study to make sure i got all of it and it turned out that I missed a crucial point----they renamed Covid-19 to SARS 2. My mistake. yes, it is important to note that none of those studies actually used corona virus.

A couple of things i found:

John Nicholls, a pathology professor at the University of Hong Kong, explained the conditions under which the virus cannot survive. (https://www.accuweather.com/en/healt...-months/679415)

"Sunlight will cut the virus' ability to grow in half so the half-life will be 2.5 minutes and in the dark it's about 13 to 20 [minutes]," Nicholls said. "Sunlight is really good at killing viruses."

Regarding temperatures, Nicholls said the warmer the better for stopping the spread of the virus, according to the transcript of the conference call.```````

"The virus can remain intact at 4 degrees (39 degrees Fahrenheit) or 10 degrees (50 F) for a longer period of time," Nicholls said, referring to Celsius measurements, according to the transcript. "But at 30 degrees (86 degrees F) then you get inactivation. And high humidity -- the virus doesn't like it either," he added, the transcript of the call showed.

Also:

“The Journal of Hospital Infection study also found that spikes in temperature made a difference in the lifespans of coronaviruses. An 18-degree Fahrenheit jump, from 68 degrees to 86 degrees, decreased how long SARS lasted on steel surfaces by at least half.” (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-...sinfect-2020-3)

So, yes, and with the virus mutating, it is hard to know ... but it does seem that none of the people who only believe what they like, ever cite any studies beyond their own studies of their own opinions. I am sure the guy buying 100 rolls of toilet paper Might be a PhD with numerous Doctorates in disease transmission, etc ....Might be ,......