Thread: CoronaVirus ==> Empty Shelves

Very few (none) comments about my post earlier today about the 2.5% wage increase for Queensland public service employees (and the $1,250 cash bonus). Can I assume that a lot of you work for the Qld government? (and would be welcoming this well deserved salary increase). I might add you also have job security during this difficult time and are probably "working from home" (wink wink)

From the Guardian blog, news out of Uganda:
President Yoweri Museveni imposed a 14-day virtual lockdown on Monday to try to clamp down on the spread of Covid-19, which infected 44 people in the East African country so far.

Private cars have been banned from roads during the period, with the government assisting expectant mothers and those in medical emergencies to secure transport to hospitals.

However, there are no functioning public ambulances, meaning that citizens are relying on private means to get to hospital.

Originally Posted by woodPixel

This site shows some interesting data!

NextStrain.org

e.g.



Attachment 470770

Genomic epidemiology of novel coronavirus

Attachment 470773

edit - visually it obvious the USA is about to be whacked by several mutations, all simultaneously.

VERY interesting stuff!!!!!

WP, those graphs are several levels above my paygrade, so would you mind interpreting them? In particular how the whacking conclusion is drawn?

Originally Posted by BobL

Perth COVID19 hot spots
https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/~/media...region-map.jpg

6 confirmed cases in my suburb (2 look like they're are at Curtin uni housing)
10 in a cluster around my sons place - don't tell DIL .

These could all be from a known case that unknowingly before they developed symptoms went to the large local Woolies just before being diagnosed.

Originally Posted by AJ.

One of the things that is prevalent through all of this is the number of statistics and numbers that are being thrown around both in relation to the virus itself, and the resulting economic response from various governments. One of the hardest things I find is to try and put everything into perspective with so many number and so many large numbers, but I have a way that I have personally found useful over the years that I thought I would share in order that it might help some get their own perspective on what is happening.

The basic premise is to convert numbers into seconds and then view them as time, I find it very useful. So here are a few conversions for you, starting with the smallest numbers and escalating from there, some of the numbers will be approximate and will change as this develops.

number of deaths 50,000 = 15 hrs 53 minutes
number of confirmed cases 1 million = 11.5 days
1 billion because its a round number = 31.7 years
Australian stimulus package 320 billion = 10,147 years
US stimulus in US dollars 2 trillion = 63,419 years.

Make of those numbers what you will.

Cheers Andrew

Andrew

I'm not sure whether to thank you or not.

using your comparisons

number of confirmed cases 1 million = 11.5 days
1 billion because its a round number = 31.7 years with exponential growth 1 billion cases will be reached inside something like 40 days -- in this context sometime in early May 2020.

Remember that the basic characteristic of a pandemic is that number of cases grows exponentially.

Warning about some hands sanitisers and the importance of using added water ie raw method is not an affective hand sanitiser.

Many hand sanitisers are ineffective against coronavirus, experts warn - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Originally Posted by BobL

Warning about some hands sanitisers and the importance of using added water ie raw metho is not an affective hand sanitiser.

Many hand sanitisers are ineffective against coronavirus, experts warn - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

They only say that water is necessary to make it "more effective" but don't explain how.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

They only say that water is necessary to make it "more effective" but don't explain how.

Brett

I think that reference to water related to 100% alcohol, which apparantly is not effective at that srength.

Regards
Paul

Yes, but why?

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Brett

I think that reference to water related to 100% alcohol, which apparantly is not effective at that srength.

Regards
Paul

It has long been accepted that 70% alcohol is the most effective strength so water is required to bring stronger alcohol down to that level

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yes, but why?

Because

Let me phrase the question slightly differently then.

Why is 95-100% alcohol less effective than 70% alcohol. It seems counter-intuitive.

I believe it is to slow the rate of evaporation. I expect its also to aide the osmotic pressure on the cell wall?



Edit (about 10 minutes after first responding)

Here we are! DuckDuckGo to the resuce!

Why Is 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) a Better Disinfectant than 99% Isopropanol, and What Is IPA Used For?

Isopropyl alcohol, particularly in solutions between 60% and 90% alcohol with 10 – 40% purified water, is rapidly antimicrobial against bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Once alcohol concentrations drop below 50%, usefulness for disinfection drops sharply. Notably, higher concentrations of alcohol don’t generate more desirable bactericidal, virucidal, or fungicidal properties.


The presence of water is a crucial factor in destroying or inhibiting the growth of pathogenic microorganisms with isopropyl alcohol. Water acts as a catalyst and plays a key role in denaturing the proteins of vegetative cell membranes. 70% IPA solutions penetrate the cell wall more completely which permeates the entire cell, coagulates all proteins, and therefore the microorganism dies. Extra water content slows evaporation, therefore increasing surface contact time and enhancing effectiveness. Isopropyl alcohol concentrations over 91% coagulate proteins instantly. Consequently, a protective layer is created which protects other proteins from further coagulation.


Solutions > 91% IPA do kill bacteria, but sometimes require longer contact times for disinfection, and enable spores to lie in a dormant state without being killed. In this analysis, a 50% isopropyl alcohol solution kills Staphylococcus Aureus in less than 10 seconds (pg. 238), yet a 90% solution with a contact time of over two hours is ineffective. Some disinfectants will kill spores, which are classified as chemical sterilants. So why do higher alcohol solutions yield fewer results for bactericidal and antimicrobial outcomes?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Let me phrase the question slightly differently then.

Why is 95-100% alcohol less effective than 70% alcohol. It seems counter-intuitive.

I was taught about 70% being the best back in the 1950s but I can't recall if we were told the reason if indeed they knew then.
After all, my granddaughter used to ask me what it was like back in the dinosaur age.