@InvaderXan

thank you, I won' t read the long thread but this was interesting nonetheless

@AbbieNormal Anytime 🙂

@Chickiepup Oh totally. If it kills 99.99% of bacteria then congratulations, in a few hours you'll have the same amount of bacteria again and won't be able to kill them this time!

@InvaderXan

Broke: Bacteria bad
Woke: Bacteria is good for soil
Bespoke: GET THAT GOOD BACCA ALL UP IN ME M8

@Chickiepup @InvaderXan there are about as many bacterial cells in our body as human cells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome#Relative_numbers

@uint8_t @Chickiepup @InvaderXan More bacteria cells

@meena Apparently not? I just thought this was interesting. It's one of those things I didn't realise till I read about it, but then I was like, yeah, that makes perfect sense

@InvaderXan Also a useful resource from the WHO for those concerned about how to disinfect difficult areas, or to deal with a patient in the home:
https://www.who.int/publications-detail/water-sanitation-hygiene-and-waste-management-for-covid-19

Note how often they use the words "existing evidence" "appears" "generally" and "likely."

There's a lot that is different about this critter and folks just do not know things for sure. It's best not to assume this is your garden-variety eukaryotic lipid bilayer.

@compostablespork @InvaderXan

Point of clarification, viruses are not eukaryotic

@dee @InvaderXan correct, which is why we shouldn't assume their membranes will behave as such

@compostablespork @InvaderXan

Making the point for anyone reading and not commenting as the thread started by mentioning viral lipid bilayers...

@dee @InvaderXan @compostablespork yup, but many viruses envelope themselves with the lipidic bilayer of the cells they infected on their way out.

@compostablespork Scientific and clinical studies use those words because that's how science works TBH. We're never certain about anything.

Also, if there were significant differences in the lipid bilayer of these viruses, they probably wouldn't have been identified as coronaviruses. It's still a virus and still only has limited means of acquiring lipid layers – infected cells only have so many components which can be stolen and repurposed. And chemically speaking, one lipid bilayer is very much the same as another, provided you're using the same solvent.

In short, while it's wise to be concerned, it's important to remember that this virus may be a new strain, but is unlikely to be anything spectacularly different to what we've seen before.

@compostablespork Though, of course, I could be wrong...

@compostablespork You make a few valid points. While I'm no virologist, I do have a lot of knowledge about the chemical interactions involved...

Firstly, viruses which exist without envelopes are entirely different strains. They aren't simply the same virus with its envelope removed, in much the same way a slug isn't simply a snail without a shell.

Data on SARS and others is being used because they're all coronaviruses. Biologically, there may be significant variations in their behaviour and epidemiology b,ut chemically speaking, they're effectively identical.

Surfactants (soaps) can also disrupt and unfold proteins and RNA in viruses, deactivating them. Additionally, it dissolves viruses off your skin and into the water.

In other words, even if the soap doesn't denature the virus itself (and it almost certainly does), it'll remove it from your skin and into solution very effectively.

@InvaderXan I don't feel comfortable saying that "chemically speaking" they're all identical. There's not enough data for that, imo. I don't actually want to discuss this since I don't know much. I am a researcher in a virus lab and I just know enough to know how much I don't know (nor is known.)

I agree - handwashing is good. But I'm also cautious about being overly certain about any of this.

@compostablespork I said effectively identical. Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. My point was that they're unlikely to behave in a radically different way, chemically speaking.

But you're right, it's best not to be overly certain about things.