Forum: Author Hangout

Threads here don't take long to drift extensively. However, you do bring up a valid point regarding coronavirus.

Just today I found a report from the CDC stating it remained on surfaces for 17 days in the cruise ship cabins that housed infected people.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6912e3-H.pdf
(Page four, last paragraph in the middle)

I also take RS's point as well. It would be a lot cleaner to have a specific area for such post. There are problems with either or imo.

I also take RS's point as well. It would be a lot cleaner to have a specific area for such post.

The ultimate place for thread drifts :D

The ultimate place for thread drifts :D

You call that a thread drift? This is a thread drift.

Drift pin comes out at 01m:05s first use at 01m:20s.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SSYJrXbxjuA

That's actual thread drifting.

That report actually says that the virus' DNA was found 17 days after the passengers left. I'm not up on such things but just as a human has DNA whether dead or alive I do not know if the DNA found was still capable of causing illness.
I am in trouble elsewhere for referring to that when the talk is of up to two days danger.

Copy paste from the linked report.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was identified on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins were vacated on the Diamond Princess but before disinfection procedures had been conducted (Takuya Yamagishi, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, personal communication, 2020).

Here is what I said:

Just today I found a report from the CDC stating it remained on surfaces for 17 days in the cruise ship cabins that housed infected people.

If you reported it elsewhere as stated, how are you in trouble?

Here is what I said:

Just today I found a report from the CDC stating it remained on surfaces for 17 days in the cruise ship cabins that housed infected people.

If you reported it elsewhere as stated, how are you in trouble?

Well, for one thing, what you said actually gives the
impression that they found live virus on surfaces after 17 days.

The quoted section from the linked report says something very different.

Copy paste where I said anything like that? They were able to find it on surfaces 17 days later.

They were able to find it on surfaces 17 days later.

No, they found virus RNA on surfaces 17 days later. That could just mean broken down dead virus.

That means the viruses they found were still 'live'.

No it doesn't. The virus shell that contains the RNA could have broken down. The RNA without the shell is not infectious.

No, they found virus RNA on surfaces 17 days later. That could just mean broken down dead virus.

I said it was found on the surfaces. That is also what the report stated. The report did not state it was alive or dead leaving that point ambiguous. I did not specify either. You have yet to show where I did, and cannot show it as it never happened.

However;

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/23/cdc-coronavirus-survived-in-princess-cruise-cabins-up-to-17-days-after-passengers-left.html

https://www.ibtimes.com/coronavirus-survives-surface-17-days-cdc-study-covid-19-cruise-ship-reveals-2945321

https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavirus-found-on-diamond-princess-surfaces-17-days-later/

https://www.foxnews.com/science/coronavirus-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-up-to-17-days-cdc

A cross section of liberal to conservative media reports that came out after the CDC report, all report it as live. Not dead.

So once again, where did I state anything different before now, or were you just taking cheap shots to stir the shit?

I read about that case in passing and it was supposed to have been non-viable RNA fragments.
Looking at your first link:

Correction: This story was updated to reflect that SARS-CoV-2 RNA, not live virus, was identified on surfaces in cruise ship cabins up to 17 days after cabins were vacated on the Diamond Princess.

The second link does not say anything about the "viability" of the RNA, what it does say is:

On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after four hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours.

(I read elsewhere that the figure for plastic and steel is 72 hours).

I did not bother with the NY Post because I don't see it as a reliable source of information for anything I care about.

The last link says:

A Princess Cruises spokesperson told Fox News late Tuesday that what was detected on the surfaces of the rooms was SARS-CoV-2 RNA* and "not [the] live virus."

The discovery of the viruses ribonucleic acid can indicate the virus "was present" but does not indicate it is still alive.

"These findings were expected because Princess Cruises voluntarily preserved these staterooms for this testing," the spokesperson stated, adding that the findings "do not indicate that transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19, was transmitted via these surfaces."

A reminder, I never stated it was living or non living. Later reports read like living, but they are not the CDC or WHO. The latter two are the only ones I'm paying attention to. At this time, various news media sources from conservative to liberal suggest live, but a reporter doesn't know jack shit one way or another.

It's stupid to assume it's nonviable until a recognized source (CDC/WHO) states otherwise.

It's stupid to assume it's nonviable until a recognized source (CDC/WHO) states otherwise.

I seem to remember you claiming that you don't believe in "experts", and that was in the context of this virus. I have seen an analysis of the findings by three specialists - and I did not examine their credentials but you have claimed not to believe in them anyway - and they backed the interpretation I highlighted above.

I did claim that, and still do. I do believe in subject matter specialist. Where else are you going to find a group of specialist on the subject at hand?

To define:
Expert implies they are beyond reproach knowing everything. There is no such animal among us. No matter how knowledgeable someone may be, there is always something they won't know.

Specialist implies a focus on a specific subject matter. There are many of those out there. A specialist neither claims to know everything, nor implies it.

Expert

Implies they used to be pert but aren't any more.
"
pert
/pərt/
adjective
1.
(of a girl or young woman) attractively lively or cheeky.
"a pert Belgian actress"
2.
(of a bodily feature or garment) attractive because neat and jaunty.
"she had a pert nose and deep blue eyes"
Similar:
jaunty
neat
trim
stylish
smart
spruce
perky
rakish"

P.S. That's a lie. I actually love playing with toys of all sizes, shapes and dispositions. ;)

All naked boobs are beautiful regardless of age, size, or condition.

I said boobs, not moobs. :)

Would they bother mentioning it unless it was still live?

Yes, because the main function of most 'news' services today is to sell more advertising, often by sensationalising everything.

Yes, because the main function of most 'news' services today is to sell more advertising, often by sensationalising everything.

I would pay a substantial fee for a news service that presents unbiased and factual news. I don't think such a service exists, at least I haven't found one.

My wife listens to NPR. She says it's unbiased news.

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

My wife listens to NPR. She says it's unbiased news

NPR: Not Particularly Relevant

Make up your mind, do you want a modern news service or unbiased and factual news - those are at different ends of the spectrum for any media provided service giving out daily events information.

I didn't mention 'modern', I couldn't care less if they delivered it by pigeon :D
What I do care about, and that I did mention, was 'unbiased and factual'.

I don't think it's even possible. As one of my history professors once said - "If you hear a historian claim he is unbiased, run!"

True, but there are 'levels' of unbiased, especially if the news items are created/reviewed by a group of reporters. If the goal within a group is to stay unbiased they check each other, if the goal is to sell as much advertisements as possible the checks are something like 'How can we twist it into something really sensational but where don't get caught in a lie... too much'.

I would pay a substantial fee for a news service that presents unbiased and factual news. I don't think such a service exists, at least I haven't found one.

All you have to read is this SOL forum - where all posts are unbiased and factual.

All you have to read is this SOL forum - where all posts are unbiased and factual.

ROFLMAO

All you have to read is this SOL forum - where all posts are unbiased and factual.

and On Topic.

and On Topic.

Off topic? Us? Shirley you jest. :)

That's Bo Jest's posh sister.

Don't forget their cousin, Diana(Di) Jest. She runs a magazine for readers.

Would they bother mentioning it unless it was still live?

Tests for the genetic material that forms the payload of a virus can't determine if it's live or not.

I would have expected very different wording if they had done the kinds of tests that could specifically identify live virus.

You have thread drifted the thread drift thread. Well done sir.