Social Distancing 1A

[O Really]

So it shouldn't surprise anybody that 3 months after the "new" coronavirus was officially recognized as catastrophe that there are many and often conflicting studies about what it does, doesn't do, yada.

As I read it, the first article was about virus staying on and being infectious on various stuff. The second article was about various materials being able to block or transmit virus. I don't seem them conflicting.

But I did have issues with each one. I agree with billy.p that somebody should have been reasonably expected to test how long the virus might last on various types of clothing at the same time they tested cardboard, stainless steel, etc. They didn't have to test all kinds of clothing - just some common types.

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?

[neoplacebo]

Seeing as how damn near all of our clothes are made in China or the surrounding area, once this fabric study gets more exposure the wingnuts will invent another conspiracy theory that China sent it here on a ship full of viral pants and shirts. Tom Cotton will start the ball rolling.

[Vrede too]

My mistake, he writes like a journalist. 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.

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?

The 1st article was full of contradictions and was written by a journalist/marriage expert, too bad she fooled you.

Every element that you listed turned out to be your ignorance or confusion. Now you're just running away from that having been shown in detail. Sad.

[Vrede too]

Seeing as how damn near all of our clothes are made in China or the surrounding area, once this fabric study gets more exposure the wingnuts will invent another conspiracy theory that China sent it here on a ship full of viral pants and shirts. Tom Cotton will start the ball rolling.

Fwiw, there was no study of virus retention by fabric and subsequent infection. That is just billy.pilgrim's nonsensical demand that all of the fabrics we use should be tested and delusion that the results will somehow be useful to us.

Otoh, there is a study of a few fabrics and other materials that people are using for masks, how effective they are and how easy it is to breathe through them.

That said, wingnuts never need to make sense.

[neoplacebo]

Seeing as how damn near all of our clothes are made in China or the surrounding area, once this fabric study gets more exposure the wingnuts will invent another conspiracy theory that China sent it here on a ship full of viral pants and shirts. Tom Cotton will start the ball rolling.

Fwiw, there was no study of virus retention by fabric and subsequent infection. That is just billy.pilgrim's nonsensical demand that all of the fabrics we use should be tested and delusion that the results will somehow be useful to us.

Otoh, there is a study of a few fabrics and other materials that people are using for masks, how effective they are and how easy it is to breathe through them.

That said, wingnuts never need to make sense.

I did not read the articles and really have no opinion regarding whether or not viral infection can be contracted from clothing since I don't generally come in contact with anyone else's clothing and have minimal contact with my own. When home, I generally only have a t shirt and underwear on. I have thought recently about whether by wearing flip flops on the rare instances I go out for something if I'm being reckless with not having shoes and socks on. In any case, the first thing I do upon coming in is take off my shoes or flips and leave them be the door.

[O Really]

That is just billy.pilgrim's nonsensical demand that all of the fabrics we use should be tested and delusion that the results will somehow be useful to us.

I don't think anybody expect all fabrics to be tested anymore than all other possible materials (e.g., in addition to stainless steel, add carbon steel, iron, painted, unpainted...) Most people wear clothes that are mostly cotton, mostly polyester, or mostly wool. I think it's a reasonable (and apparently pretty universal) question to ask "when I wear these clothes to the grocery, what if anything am I likely bringing home?" Particularly since the opportunity to pick up virus on clothing is about as high as anything else. Touch the infected handle; touch your sleeve or pants leg; rub against the infected counter or rail, yada.

[Vrede too]

I did not read the articles and really have no opinion regarding whether or not viral infection can be contracted from clothing since I don't generally come in contact with anyone else's clothing and have minimal contact with my own. When home, I generally only have a t shirt and underwear on. I have thought recently about whether by wearing flip flops on the rare instances I go out for something if I'm being reckless with not having shoes and socks on. In any case, the first thing I do upon coming in is take off my shoes or flips and leave them be the door.

The first article says that you're probably safe unless someone has sneezed or coughed directly on you. In that case, remove and wash your clothes and take a shower.

[billy.pilgrim]

Seeing as how damn near all of our clothes are made in China or the surrounding area, once this fabric study gets more exposure the wingnuts will invent another conspiracy theory that China sent it here on a ship full of viral pants and shirts. Tom Cotton will start the ball rolling.

Fwiw, there was no study of virus retention by fabric and subsequent infection. That is just billy.pilgrim's nonsensical demand that all of the fabrics we use should be tested and delusion that the results will somehow be useful to us.

Otoh, there is a study of a few fabrics and other materials that people are using for masks, how effective they are and how easy it is to breathe through them.

That said, wingnuts never need to make sense.

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

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

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

[O Really]

whether by wearing flip flops on the rare instances I go out for something if I'm being reckless with not having shoes and socks on.

Nevermind the virus, from a sanitation standpoint, flip flops (or "thongs" in Canada-speak), are only about a thin layer better than stepping in shit. Ever follow along behind somebody wearing them? Check the heels. ewwwww.

[neoplacebo]

I did not read the articles and really have no opinion regarding whether or not viral infection can be contracted from clothing since I don't generally come in contact with anyone else's clothing and have minimal contact with my own. When home, I generally only have a t shirt and underwear on. I have thought recently about whether by wearing flip flops on the rare instances I go out for something if I'm being reckless with not having shoes and socks on. In any case, the first thing I do upon coming in is take off my shoes or flips and leave them be the door.

The first article says that you're probably safe unless someone has sneezed or coughed directly on you. In that case, remove and wash your clothes and take a shower.

Thanks; as for going without shoes and socks I feel generally safe since I don't touch my face with my feet and don't put one in my mouth; at least not intentionally.

[Vrede too]

I don't think anybody expect all fabrics to be tested anymore than all other possible materials (e.g., in addition to stainless steel, add carbon steel, iron, painted, unpainted...) Most people wear clothes that are mostly cotton, mostly polyester, or mostly wool. I think it's a reasonable (and apparently pretty universal) question to ask "when I wear these clothes to the grocery, what if anything am I likely bringing home?" Particularly since the opportunity to pick up virus on clothing is about as high as anything else. Touch the infected handle; touch your sleeve or pants leg; rub against the infected counter or rail, yada.

Clothing, even limited to those 3 fabrics, comes in a wide variety of blends, weaves and configurations, worn on different parts of the body with different layering, etc. in very different settings. Maybe there will be some testing, but I think it's unreasonable to expect it and the results will be of very limited usefulness. Hence, the article stuck to generalities based on what we do know, which is not the reporter's failure.

[neoplacebo]

whether by wearing flip flops on the rare instances I go out for something if I'm being reckless with not having shoes and socks on.

Nevermind the virus, from a sanitation standpoint, flip flops (or "thongs" in Canada-speak), are only about a thin layer better than stepping in shit. Ever follow along behind somebody wearing them? Check the heels. ewwwww.

uh oh

[O Really]

I don't think anybody expect all fabrics to be tested anymore than all other possible materials (e.g., in addition to stainless steel, add carbon steel, iron, painted, unpainted...) Most people wear clothes that are mostly cotton, mostly polyester, or mostly wool. I think it's a reasonable (and apparently pretty universal) question to ask "when I wear these clothes to the grocery, what if anything am I likely bringing home?" Particularly since the opportunity to pick up virus on clothing is about as high as anything else. Touch the infected handle; touch your sleeve or pants leg; rub against the infected counter or rail, yada.

Clothing, even limited to those 3 fabrics, comes in a wide variety of blends, weaves and configurations, worn on different parts of the body with different layering, etc. in very different settings. Maybe there will be some testing, but I think it's unreasonable to expect it and the results will be of very limited usefulness. Hence, the article stuck to generalities based on what we do know, which is not the reporter's failure.

Everything about the reported tests so far has been limited to specific circumstances: controlled lab conditions, specific temp, humidity, light, wind, etc. If they tested, for example, jeans, chino-type trou, tee shirts and oxford-woven, and fleece, you'd cover a lot of people - probably 90% of California.

[billy.pilgrim]

So it shouldn't surprise anybody that 3 months after the "new" coronavirus was officially recognized as catastrophe that there are many and often conflicting studies about what it does, doesn't do, yada.

As I read it, the first article was about virus staying on and being infectious on various stuff. The second article was about various materials being able to block or transmit virus. I don't seem them conflicting.

But I did have issues with each one. I agree with billy.p that somebody should have been reasonably expected to test how long the virus might last on various types of clothing at the same time they tested cardboard, stainless steel, etc. They didn't have to test all kinds of clothing - just some common types.

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?

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

[Vrede too]

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.

[billy.pilgrim]

I don't think anybody expect all fabrics to be tested anymore than all other possible materials (e.g., in addition to stainless steel, add carbon steel, iron, painted, unpainted...) Most people wear clothes that are mostly cotton, mostly polyester, or mostly wool. I think it's a reasonable (and apparently pretty universal) question to ask "when I wear these clothes to the grocery, what if anything am I likely bringing home?" Particularly since the opportunity to pick up virus on clothing is about as high as anything else. Touch the infected handle; touch your sleeve or pants leg; rub against the infected counter or rail, yada.

Clothing, even limited to those 3 fabrics, comes in a wide variety of blends, weaves and configurations, worn on different parts of the body with different layering, etc. in very different settings. Maybe there will be some testing, but I think it's unreasonable to expect it and the results will be of very limited usefulness. Hence, the article stuck to generalities based on what we do know, which is not the reporter's failure.

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

[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.

[Vrede too]

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.

[O Really]

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.

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.

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

[Vrede too]

... 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.