But you didnt say any of that…and the questions (and the logic behind them) was more than valid.
You owe Mike an apology.
2 Likes
So don’t listen to any of the links contained in the Serious Eats piece. “Instead, listen to ME, a complete stranger on the internet”?
1 Like
You don’t have to listen to me. I have no financial stake in you taking my advice about making lasagna or cooking tools to take to college or anything else. SE on the other hand sells content as well as advertising. If you look for the direct opposite of Consumer Reports you will find SE. That doesn’t make everything wrong, just all suspect. Certainly not a credible source.
Read this https://www.seriouseats.com/2017/08/cooking-equipment-tools-for-dorm-rooms-kitchens.html and honestly tell me it isn’t egregious? Walk into any college dorm and visit the circuit breaker panel and consider the implications. Talk to any parent with kids in college and add up what they suggest. Walk through any dorm and tell me how many kids have any interest in a sous vide machine.
SE is an advertising mill. There is a big difference between advertising to support operations and operating to sell advertising.
I was not talking about that random link on dorm room equipment that you chose as an example of your reliability vs that of SE. I wrote “the links contained in the Serious Eats post”. vs some guy on the internet.
1 Like
If you read it again, you’ll see that I asked a specific question to open. You, for unclear reasons, made assumptions about what I was doing, who I was doing it with, and then effectively told me my original question was dumb because I was taking even bigger risks than possibly getting sick from handling food others had handled. That was a lot of speculation in one post.
Sorry this response is to Sunshine not MIke.
Respectfully disagree. I don’t think an OP is required to assuage other people’s prospective concerns, which they can’t even predict, and which are not based on any foundation, in order to ask a question. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to make assumptions when answering. The comment was pretty judgmental.
You asked a question and didn’t like the answer. You can’t really define how someone responds to your question. Fair enough to share your rebuttal, of course.
I appreciate your perspective, and I don’t want this to devolve. My rebuttal, since I may, is that what was given was not an answer to the question I asked, but in fact a scolding of my assumed actions and assumed general lack of awareness. That’s all I’ll say on it. I appreciate very much everyone who has given me thoughtful advice and resources to consider about the whole takeout food situation.
You are right. The CDC site says one thing, but science says another:
You are right. The CDC site says one thing, but science says another:
Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, even if it has “science” or “medical” in its name.
The CDC and Science (as well as the WHO and other reliable public health authorities) all say the same thing, while the author of the article you linked apparently didn’t bother to actually read the study , or lacks fundamental reading comprehension skills.
That article is not “new news”, and “the team” the article refers to did not “study” any virus samples themselves, much less “SARS-Cov-2” as the current virus was being called at the time. It was a meta-analysis of existing studies, obviously none of which could have studied Covid-19/H-Cov-19, since it was not yet known to science when those studies were done.
From the text of the study itself (linked in the article you linked, even while the article’s author mis-quoted it):
The analysis of 22 studies reveals that human coronaviruses such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus or endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV) can persist on inanimate surfaces like metal, glass or plastic for up to 9 days.
Note the absence of “SARS-Cov-2” anywhere in that statement. Indeed, “SARS-Cov-2” per se is mentioned only four times anywhere in that report (twice in the introduction and twice in the conclusion), and the only arguably “factual” assertion made anywhere in the study about “SARS-Cov-2” concerns the presumed effectiveness of biocidal agents against it:
Surface disinfection with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite or 62–71% ethanol significantly reduces coronavirus infectivity on surfaces within 1 min exposure time. We expect a similar effect against the SARS-CoV-2.
1 Like
But if one were to go further down in the article it states: " The team says that the current coronavirus is like previous ones in terms of its ability to live outside the host and their vulnerability to disinfectants."
I’d rather be safe than sorry.
That’s a very far cry from your earlier statement. By all means do whatever makes you most comfortable, but don’t claim that “science” contradicts the CDC, WHO, etc, etc (etc) when “science” does no such thing.
And fwiw, “like” doesn’t mean " identical", and even the study’s authors make no attempt to actually quantify the time period H-Cov-19 can reman active outside of its (human) hosts…
Not knowing what will work on your computer, I’m sending you what I have found so far. Perhaps you can do further research on this. And bear with me as this is the first time I’ve tried to do some of this so I hope it works.
Now think of this: A migrant worker harvesting lettuce. This worker doesn’t feel well but needs the money, is not aware a test is available, can’t afford a test, or fears deportation. But he continues to pick the lettuce and you purchase and eat it. Or you order a great big salad for takeout. Even in the best of times, do you really think they wash this stuff??
Now let me see if I can download what I have and it’s up to you as to what you want to believe. I couldn’t download my document with links in docx format, so only jpeg works. However, I hope you can copy & paste these links to follow up to check their information. Here goes.
VIRUS 2.pdf (311.0 KB)
Now what do you suppose would happen if they told us this? The entire economy would collapse beyond recognition. They know this already, but they’re telling us to self isolate for 14 days instead. Why do you think that is?? So I would only caution you to wear disposable gloves when you go shopping and try to disinfect surfaces on purchased items as much as you can when you get home. But that’s entirely up to you. I’m only trying to help. Coronavirus is a cruel death. You have parents & children.
In the meantime, let’s just pray this nightmare ends soon.
The Journal of Hospital Infection report you linked is the same one linked in the article you linked earlier. It does not specifically address HCov-19/Covid-19 aka “SARS-Cov-2” at all. I explained that in some detail in my earlier post; I’m not going to repeat myself.
I also addressed the very poorly researched and written article (https://www.news-medical.net/news/202002 11/Coronavirus-can-live-on-common-surfaces-for-nine-
days-how-to-kill-it.aspx) you linked in your earlier post. The next article on your list - https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-02-coronaviruses-persist-surfaces-inactivate.html - is similar to the first one, almost a “duplicate” in fact. It also doesn’t cite any references to any examination of HCov-19; it discusses “human coronaviruses”, and there are a lot of them, including the viruses that cause influenza and the common cold, both of which have been extremely well-studied and have much shorter “lives” outside of their host. Which of course does not mean HCov-19 is “just like” them either, but that’s my whole point. There are a lot of “human coronaviruses”, and they are not all “like” each other as far as how long they’re stable outside human hosts is concerned (and/or necessarily in terms of what conditions affect the length of that stability).
And I can’t help but notice that - rather ironically - you fail to include in your list of “resources” the one study that has been done so far that has in fact specifically studied HCov-19/Covid-19. Namely, this one: Aerosol and surface stability of HCoV-19 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to SARS-CoV-1.
And what you think the last article you linked has to do with the stability of the virus outside of human hosts, I can’t even begin to fathom…
You’ll have to forgive my bluntness, but I have no patience for the kind of FUD you seem intent on spreading. Once again I’ll say that by all means you - and anyone else - should do whatever makes you feel most comfortable for yourself. But that does not include disseminating inaccurate information. If you want to keep posting links like these, at least do so honestly and stop misrepresenting their significance. If the problem is that you really don’t understand that and/or how you are misinterpreting them, then I strongly suggest you stop interpreting them “for others” entirely. Again, by all means read whatever you want for your own edification, but stop trying to “enlighten” other people. If you must, post links to the articles you find, but stop trying to interpret their significance…, because again -at the risk of seeming rude - I must say you don’t seem very good at it…
2 Likes
I did check out the last link you sent:
2020.03.09.20033217v1.full.pdf (692.8 KB) Virus.pdf (750.9 KB)
Just be careful what you buy:
That pizza is probably better than some pizzeria pies though
2 Likes
Yes let’s pray, that’s going to work. Perhaps Trump should be taking things a little more seriously.
I’m sending you several items that I hope will help:
Per the above reply, you’ll have to click on each pdf file to view the contents. I guess I’m not that familiar with how this works, so I hope you will read the info in each, as they point out the fact that the CDC may be withholding the fact that the virus may live on surfaces much longer than they claim.
