Social Distancing 1A

[billy.pilgrim]

Also, the 2nd article about fabric testing contradicts the first that states there hasn't been testing on fabric.

Are you pretending to be a moron or is it real?

Sigh, testing every possible fabric for virus retention and likelihood of causing disease is very different than testing a few fabrics people are using to make masks. I merely cited the masks article to illustrate that there are differences when you're unreasonably demanding a one size fits all answer for how long the virus lives on clothing.

The first article said "there hasn't been testing on fabric" for VIRUS RETENTION AND SUBSEQUENT INFECTION. The second article was about MASK suitability.

Why are you still confusing the two DIFFERENT types of testing for post after post? It's pitiful.

You said that fabric hadn't been tested, until you said it has been tested, until you said it shouldn't be tested, until you said you lied and said that I demanded "a one size fits all answer for how long the virus lives on clothing" but then, I guess you needed a strawman win for your trophy wall.

[billy.pilgrim]

... The second article seemed to editorialize a bit about Trump and the scarves, NTTAWWT, but it seemed to influence their tests. The scarves they tested were wool, etc., somewhat obviously loosely woven. Of course that makes it easy to say "scarves are bad." Why didn't they test silk or polyester scarves?

Again, I merely linked it to give an example of differing common fabrics and to reinforce my point about billy.pilgrim's confusion over who the masks are protecting and why the expert (he blames reporters) opinion changed. Since I have actual masks, I paid little attention to content or credibility.

After I add a comment about your 1st article that clai.ed no testing had been done.
I called bullshit on that and you confirmed my comment with the 2nd article.

Now admit your mistake.

[Vrede too]

And I love the way he beat up the strawman who was leaving his ice cream in the garage for 3 days.

Face it vrede, people are saying all kinds of bullshit. Do ghis, but don't do it about pretty much everything.

Again, that is your straw man. I've never said otherwise. However, you've taken a completely unrelated article written by a person that you oddly confused with being a "journalist" despite its clear attribution and are claiming that doing so has some relevance to the first article I linked.

Why don't you write Donald Schaffner, a microbiologist and expert on food safety from Rutgers University, a stern note instead of making him part of our chat for no apparent reason?

... Really, not washing fruits and veggies is a good idea? Could be he's a friend of Pete hegseth.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2 ... -10-years/

I'll keep on washing my fruits and veggies

[neoplacebo]

I've read a couple of things about how long the virus can live on various materials and if I remember the longest time was three days but I forget what material that was. Others were of lesser viability. I'm no biologist or viral savant but I have to assume that without a living host the thing can't live too damn long on or in any non living item.

[billy.pilgrim]

... The second article seemed to editorialize a bit about Trump and the scarves, NTTAWWT, but it seemed to influence their tests. The scarves they tested were wool, etc., somewhat obviously loosely woven. Of course that makes it easy to say "scarves are bad." Why didn't they test silk or polyester scarves?

Again, I merely linked it to give an example of differing common fabrics and to reinforce my point about billy.pilgrim's confusion over who the masks are protecting and why the expert (he blames reporters) opinion changed. Since I have actual masks, I paid little attention to content or credibility.

And there we have it, vrede pays "little attention to content or credibility."
but he will attack you if you find discrepancies in what he posts.

[billy.pilgrim]

Who demanded all fabrics be tested? Not me, that is another of your strawmen.

Ummm, it's the only way that your whiny demand can work. People wear different fabrics, duh.

Really, not knowing how long a fabric retains the virus isn't useful?

Would you really examine a list of all possible fabrics with their different manufacturers, weaves and blends and the differing virus retention and then compare it to the ones that you're wearing every time you go out? If not, the list would be useless.

How about the most common 2 or 3?


Edit: I'm tired of all your fuck you comments and your constant use of childish name calling. So, here it is vrede, fuck you. I think your heart is in the right place, but you are one of those people who can't admit when they make a mistake.

You have presented 2 articles that contradict. One even contradicts itself.

Now give yourself another trophy.

Now how about testing the most common 2 or 3 fabrics?

[Vrede too]

You are standing on your head protecting both of these writers - relationship experts and scientists alike

That's a lie. I don't care about the writers. What I care about is how you are thoroughly befuddling what they've said and are stupidly blaming me for it.

[O Really]

... The second article seemed to editorialize a bit about Trump and the scarves, NTTAWWT, but it seemed to influence their tests. The scarves they tested were wool, etc., somewhat obviously loosely woven. Of course that makes it easy to say "scarves are bad." Why didn't they test silk or polyester scarves?

Again, I merely linked it to give an example of differing common fabrics and to reinforce my point about billy.pilgrim's confusion over who the masks are protecting and why the expert (he blames reporters) opinion changed. Since I have actual masks, I paid little attention to content or credibility.

Yeah, I had read that article before you posted it. The study itself seemed credible for what it did, but I did think the testing of only loose-knit scarves was a bit biased, since they went out of their way to point out Trump's wrongness.

[billy.pilgrim]

You are standing on your head protecting both of these writers - relationship experts and scientists alike

That's a lie. I don't care about the writers. What I care about is how you are thoroughly befuddling what they've said and are stupidly blaming me for it.

Run with it vrede. Strange that you make such a fuss about something so obviously wrong in several respects.

Now answer the question.
Oh that's right - you can't without admitting you are wrong.

[Vrede too]

Would you really examine a list of all possible fabrics with their different manufacturers, weaves and blends and the differing virus retention and then compare it to the ones that you're wearing every time you go out? If not, the list would be useless.

How about the most common 2 or 3?

Sigh. "different manufacturers, weaves and blends".

Edit: I'm tired of all your fuck you comments and your constant use of childish name calling.

Your second post on the tangent, BEFORE I'd said anything harsh to you:

... Now you are talking like trump.

There is nothing, nothing more pathetic than someone that dishes it out only to screech like a toddler if it comes back at him. Grow up.

So, here it is vrede, fuck you. I think your heart is in the right place, but you are one of those people who can't admit when they make a mistake.

You haven't found any, but you have run away from all but one of the mistakes you've made. Prove me wrong.

You have presented 2 articles that contradict. One even contradicts itself.

Your mommy still has to buy all of the apples and oranges for you. Masks and virus retention are 2 different things, cretin.

Now give yourself another trophy.

Whiny gibberish.

[Vrede too]

I don't think anybody expects that degree of exactness, nor are we getting it from the tests on other materials. Sure, the lab can keep the virus alive for several days at a fixed temp and light on stainless steel, but that's not matching real life. But you can apply the principles found to real life, i.e., more risk from stainless steel door handles, rails, counters than from cardboard packaging. Clothing would be no different: if the test reports that in the lab the longest they could get virus to live is X days/hours on denim and is Y day/hours on polyester, then that would tell you something useful. If the tests showed that in no fabric tested the virus lived more than 3 hours, that would be useful, too. But to ignore the testing of clothing specifically seems strange.

Off the top of my head I've described why it would be time consuming and difficult, and of very limited usefulness to us. However, I'm not a scientist and maybe they are doing such tests for all I know. The issue here is that billy.pilgrim has been whining for page after page because the reporter, who is also not a scientist, reported on the testing that has been done and how it might relate to clothing.

The study on mask materials measured ability to transmit/block virus, not addressing how long it lives.

Thank you. I'm at a loss as to why billy.pilgrim has been conflating the two for post after post, but it's depressing.

[Vrede too]

You said that fabric hadn't been tested, until you said it has been tested,

Comprehend much?

The first article said "there hasn't been testing on fabric" for VIRUS RETENTION AND SUBSEQUENT INFECTION. The second article was about MASK suitability.

Why are you still confusing the two DIFFERENT types of testing for post after post? It's pitiful.

until you said it shouldn't be tested,

You lie. I merely described the complexities, ones you cower from. If they test fabrics or not ain't up to me.

until you said you lied and said that I demanded "a one size fits all answer for how long the virus lives on clothing"

Not my problem that you're too stupid to recognize the implications of your stupidity, or that you're too wussy to admit your stupidity, but it is my entertainment. Thank you.

but then, I guess you needed a strawman win for your trophy wall.

Whiny gibberish.

[billy.pilgrim]

You said that fabric hadn't been tested, until you said it has been tested,

Comprehend much?

The first article said "there hasn't been testing on fabric" for VIRUS RETENTION AND SUBSEQUENT INFECTION. The second article was about MASK suitability.

Why are you still confusing the two DIFFERENT types of testing for post after post? It's pitiful.

until you said it shouldn't be tested,

You lie. I merely described the complexities, ones you cower from. If they test fabrics or not ain't up to me.

until you said you lied and said that I demanded "a one size fits all answer for how long the virus lives on clothing"

Not my problem that you're too stupid to recognize the implications of your stupidity, or that you're too wussy to admit your stupidity, but it is my entertainment. Thank you.

but then, I guess you needed a strawman win for your trophy wall.

Whiny gibberish.

Run vrede run

Its not my problem that you're too stupid to recognize the implications of your stupidity, or that you're too wussy to admit your stupidity, but it is my entertainment. Thank you.

[Vrede too]

Not my problem that you're too stupid to recognize the implications of your stupidity, or that you're too wussy to admit your stupidity, but it is my entertainment. Thank you.

Let's detail billy.pilgrim's many many flubs:

"Most of what we know about how long this novel coronavirus lives on surfaces comes from an important study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in March. The study found that the virus can survive, under ideal conditions, up to three days on hard metal surfaces and plastic and up to 24 hours on cardboard."

"But the study did not look at fabric. Still, most virus experts believe that the cardboard research offers clues about how the virus probably behaves on fabric."

Brought to you by the same people who last week said the opposite.

Who? Citation?

Challenge cowered from, as usual.

Bottom line - doing too much can't hurt, but not doing enough can kill you. 2 weeks ago "experts" were saying not to wear masks, 2 weeks before there was something else...

You're confused. The masks are mostly not to protect the lay person wearer. Rather, what changed is the research showing that asymptomatic people can be contagious. The masks are to protect others....

Correction cowered from, as usual.

The Best Coronavirus Face Mask Materials, According To A New Study

Also, since we touched on your misunderstanding:

... And remember: By covering your face in public, you are helping others to stay safe from anything you may be carrying. It’s more about their protection than your own.

Further correction cowered from, as usual.

... Same as the article that said don't wear masks.

Sigh, as I explained above and you're ignoring it was the experts that changed their opinion based on new science.

What "new science"?

Completely lost track, as usual.

As for typing mistakes - you know that I use a phone and don't preview like I should. Knowing that, you should have known that it wasn't "bizarre", just fat fongers.

Got it. You stuck "k9nanny " in the word "fabric" and you initially don't even know what happened, yet I am somehow supposed to figure it out and not call it "bizarre". How can I ever forgive myself?

Point cowered from, as usual.

Anyhow, this is not a discussion about whether journalists screw up. Of course they do and that's just your straw man to imply that I think otherwise. Rather, this discussion is about all the ways that you're confused about the first article I linked.

Point cowered from, as usual.

... Strange that he believes you can rinse soap off of your dishes but not your apples. Maybe he is unable to apply his knowledge to the real world.

"apples", a somewhat unique food, is your strawman. He actually writes more generally:

Washing fresh produce with soap? Soap should absolutely not be used to wash food. Soap is not designed for food. As mentioned in the linked thread, soap can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea if ingested.

Point cowered from, as usual.

And I love the way he beat up the strawman who was leaving his ice cream in the garage for 3 days.

Face it vrede, people are saying all kinds of bullshit. Do ghis, but don't do it about pretty much everything.

Again, that is your straw man. I've never said otherwise. However, you've taken a completely unrelated article written by a person that you oddly confused with being a "journalist" despite its clear attribution and are claiming that doing so has some relevance to the first article I linked.

Point cowered from, as usual.

Why don't you write Donald Schaffner, a microbiologist and expert on food safety from Rutgers University, a stern note instead of making him part of our chat for no apparent reason?

Challenge cowered from, as usual.

Who demanded all fabrics be tested? Not me, that is another of your strawmen.

Ummm, it's the only way that your whiny demand can work. People wear different fabrics, duh.

Point cowered from, as usual.

Really, not knowing how long a fabric retains the virus isn't useful?

Would you really examine a list of all possible fabrics with their different manufacturers, weaves and blends and the differing virus retention and then compare it to the ones that you're wearing every time you go out? If not, the list would be useless.

Question and point cowered from, as usual.

Also, the 2nd article about fabric testing contradicts the first that states there hasn't been testing on fabric.

Are you pretending to be a moron or is it real?

The first article said "there hasn't been testing on fabric" for VIRUS RETENTION AND SUBSEQUENT INFECTION. The second article was about MASK suitability.

Why are you still confusing the two DIFFERENT types of testing for post after post? It's pitiful.

Questions and point cowered from, as usual.

Edit: I'm tired of all your fuck you comments and your constant use of childish name calling.

Your second post on the tangent, BEFORE I'd said anything harsh to you:

... Now you are talking like trump.

There is nothing, nothing more pathetic than someone that dishes it out only to screech like a toddler if it comes back at him. Grow up.

Proven crybaby hypocrisy cowered from, as usual.

So, here it is vrede, fuck you. I think your heart is in the right place, but you are one of those people who can't admit when they make a mistake.

You haven't found any, but you have run away from all but one of the mistakes you've made. Prove me wrong.

Challenge cowered from, as usual.

The study on mask materials measured ability to transmit/block virus, not addressing how long it lives.

Thank you. I'm at a loss as to why billy.pilgrim has been conflating the two for post after post, but it's depressing.

Point cowered from, as usual, even when O Really is the one to make it.

How humiliating for you, even more so that every screw up that you're busted in leads you to compound your shame with wussy deflections and further screw ups because that’s how delicate your ego is.

[billy.pilgrim]

Dance vrede dance

Too bad you can't accept mistakes. Give yourself another trophy

[Vrede too]

Dance vrede dance

Too bad you can't accept mistakes. Give yourself another trophy

Mirror, cowering pansy. Your rapid whiny reply shows that you were even too pants-wetting terrified to look at the list of all of your failures. Poor baby.

[billy.pilgrim]

Dance vrede dance

Too bad you can't accept mistakes. Give yourself another trophy

Mirror, cowering pansy. Your rapid whiny reply shows that you were even too pants-wetting terrified to look at the list of all of your failures. Poor baby.

I replied, but you ran away from any sort of discussion, opting instead for attacking things not said and with the incessant name calling every time you get called on your mistakes, large or small. Instead of attempting a discussion, you immediately resort to childish name calling. So give yourself another trophy, you have again distorted any chance of a discussion into some adolescent attempt to never admit a mistake.

[Vrede too]

I replied, but you ran away from any sort of discussion,

Wussy projection, as usual. The list is accurate. That's why you're whining like a toddler rather than directly challenging even a single element of it.

opting instead for attacking things not said and with the incessant name calling every time you get called on your mistakes, large or small. Instead of attempting a discussion, you immediately resort to childish name calling.

Your second post on the tangent, BEFORE I'd said anything harsh to you:

... Now you are talking like trump.

There is nothing, nothing more pathetic than someone that dishes it out only to screech like a toddler if it comes back at him. Grow up.

So give yourself another trophy,

Whiny gibberish.

you have again distorted any chance of a discussion into some adolescent attempt to never admit a mistake.

Wussy projection, as usual.

[Vrede too]

Is it ethical to order food delivery amid the coronavirus?

Crap, it didn't occur to me that this might be an issue. I have not been ordering meals, but I'll have to think about it when it's time for the next groceries. Given that I'm at moderate risk I'll probably stay safe, but I might feel a little guilty about it, and I'll double the tip.

[Vrede too]

Interesting - MA "close contact" tracing is for anyone that was within 6 feet of a known infected person for 15 minutes or more. If based on credible science, this makes me feel even better about groceries, clothing, etc.