swansont

Found this https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article#tnF1 Strong airflow is alleged to be the culprit, since droplets travel further. Filtration doesn’t fix that. Some basis for the discussion, other than conjecture, is needed.

Not my burden of proof. But the scenario offered - nursing homes - has caretakers in close contact with multiple people on a daily basis. Has that been eliminated from being the prime suspect?

Clearly? What evidence is there to support this? What information do you have on air filtration removal of the virus? Can you reconcile your need for a high flow rate with this filtration/exposure plan?

Outside of my area of expertise, but unless the tissue is coated with whatever you’re trying to kill, I’d guess “no”

Inside the lungs even surface-level effects will be damaging. Radiation that only penetrates the top level of cells has been tested (this came up here or in a related thread) - it's in the deep UV. In one sense it's like alpha radiation. Externally not a problem because it's attenuated by the top layer of cells, but very damaging if ingested/inhaled. You would, in effect, be getting a sunburn inside your lungs.

What have the countries which have had the most success done?

Yeah, about Sweden... "Sweden: 22 Scientists Say Coronavirus Strategy Has Failed As Deaths Top 1,000" https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/04/14/sweden-22-scientists-say-coronavirus-strategy-has-failed-as-deaths-top-1000/#1f42483e7b6c

It's kinda like the Stockholm syndrome in that regard. I didn't recall the name, either. I was double-checking which bias it was (wasn't sure if it fell under confirmation bias) and it popped up.

Then it's not a good example for the situation of a place that hasn't been able to get ahead of the spread of the virus (not that Sweden is doing great), and one should note that they are saying they are still a month away from herd immunity - in the capital. We don't know if/how well their strategy is going to work. As a counterexample, one can look at Singapore. Or look at the 1918-19 flu pandemic. The "second wave" was worse than the initial wave.

It's called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (frequency bias). Coupled with confirmation bias.

Try it in your country, and have someone report back.

How can a single entity be in equilibrium? That's like asking "what's the difference between a duck?"

We know one thing that will happen: more people will get sick, and some fraction of them will die. How do we know this? Because we can observe areas that didn't lock down in a timely fashion. The virus spreads when given an opportunity to do so. This isn't a hard problem. Thank you for making the case for social safety nets. Does the financially stable person have the authority to order the poor person into harm's way, when they are not willing to go there themselves?

You're cherry-picking the data. You can't check the premise that "all horses are white" by only showing pictures of white horses.

No, I'm suggesting that the device is dangerous to use, and more so without training and safety equipment. Do you have, for example, UV-safe goggles (or better yet, a face shield)? Do you know to wear skin covering when using the lamp, if it is exposed? Nothing about that phrase suggests it's anything but a source of 260nm-280 nm light. What that phrase suggests to me is that you need other equipment to use it safely, and that's their way of passing liability on to you should you be injured. If you aren't trained, and/or don't get the safety equipment you need, it's your fault, not theirs. They warned you! A lot of things are available on the internet that are dangerous to use for the untrained. They, too, probably have a safety disclaimer on the package or device. But that doesn't stop people from being stupid.

note: I have added to my post I don't know what you mean by "false" and you have given no examples of the devices you are referring to, so one cannot evaluate their claims. They are probably UVC lights if they say they are, but they also may emit over a large wavelength range, and would therefore be dangerous

"specialist equipment" suggests the answer is "no" The article I linked to mentions "filtered excimer lamp" This article https://www.laserfocusworld.com/lasers-sources/article/16571809/lowdoserate-excimer-lamps-in-hospitals-schools-and-airports-could-safely-curtail-spread-of-flu-watch-video gives details: 207 nm light is emitted by a krypton-bromine (Kr-Br) excimer lamp, while 222 nm is emitted by a krypton-chlorine (Kr-Cl) excimer lamp (and goes on to discuss the study)

There's a Nature article that claims that far UVC isn't an issue for mammalian skin https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21058-w its [UVC] widespread use in public settings is limited because conventional UVC light sources are both carcinogenic and cataractogenic. By contrast, we have previously shown* that far-UVC light (207–222 nm) efficiently inactivates bacteria without harm to exposed mammalian skin. This is because, due to its strong absorbance in biological materials, far-UVC light cannot penetrate even the outer (non living) layers of human skin or eye; however, because bacteria and viruses are of micrometer or smaller dimensions, far-UVC can penetrate and inactivate them. We show for the first time that far-UVC efficiently inactivates airborne aerosolized viruses, with a very low dose of 2 mJ/cm2of 222-nm light inactivating >95% of aerosolized H1N1 influenza virus. Continuous very low dose-rate far-UVC light in indoor public locations is a promising, safe and inexpensive tool to reduce the spread of airborne-mediated microbial diseases. This suggests that the longer-wavelength end of the UVC spectrum (and possibly even longer wavelengths from commercial sources, that bleed into the other parts of the spectrum) are the danger. *"we have previously shown" has citations to go along with it, in the body of the article. References 13, 14 and 15. So for a source that's 260-280 nm: no don't use it if it exposes you. It's dangerous. But it probably kills the virus, if exposed for long enough.

Sorry, I mucked that up that (not sure what I was thinking) Pressure isn’t constant going through a nozzle (and V is proportional to T for the case I gave) As the gas moves, the pressure tends to drop (Bernoulli’s equation).

Of what use is it as a conceptual tool, if it doesn't work? How do you assess whether or not the idea applies to a specific situation? You need an objective way of determining this.

Your breath is cooler than the soup and warmer than the air. There is no inherent contradiction, if that’s all there was to it. Blowing on the soup promotes evaporation, which is a cooling process. Blowing through an aperture means there is expansion afterwards. If the pressure and composition of a gas remains constant and it expands, the temperature goes down. (an ideal gas follows PV = nRT, so they would be proportional under that condition) edit: see below

Then he’d be out of office, at which point he could be arrested and tried.

Not until after he’s out of the presidency.

If congress were willing to do its job enforcing the checks and balances, Trump would be far less effective at gumming up the works. I don't know how you conclude this isn't an actual issue. It can be more than one thing. Campaign finance is one of the issues. It has allowed the election of people whose goal is to seize power, rather than to be a public servant. But people had to be in power to enact the laws and get the right people on the supreme court to not be a heck or balance, and strike down existing laws. Kind of a chicken vs egg issue. Which came first?

53 of them are in the senate, not doing the job they swore an oath to do