4 ms·

Dude first I didnt want to trigger you and I apreciate your comment. But isnt saying its a gut feeling somehow communicating it is understood that this isnt the

Dude first I didnt want to trigger you and I apreciate your comment. But isnt saying its a gut feeling somehow communicating it is understood that this isnt the standpoint of a scientist? Thats mostly common sense. So why go into ragemod on sth I did state as something not to take seriously? But you made a long comment so I will take the time to engage with you. 1. a potential awesome idea it isnt. Uvc is very strong and every layman should now that it can kill bacteria and viruses … it can even split chemical bonds. And a it should be known that it creates ozon and could cause cancer. But this is a question of the intensity. And also as the ozon layer filters uvc we dont have much contact. But it is safe to asume that if UVA and UVB are causing cancer so should UVC … the next lvl of higher energy is X-ray and gamma and beta. Funny stuff 2. a scenario where to people are talking to each other and the uv cant radiate between them. 3 I did propose the hepa filter because the problem is the following. You have a rate of virus getting in the air and a rate it is killed by uv light and a rate of it is absorbed by the hepa filter. So imho a room were air can circulate easily there should be a possibility of getting to the rate that the air in the room is changed sufficent quickly to not get anough virus to make people ill. UV light is a good choice and allready used in hospitals and cheap. But when nobody is there. But i still dont think its a good idea to throw high energy radiation onto people just to be safe. 3.1 they are expensiv and getting to a solution is not what this society is made for 3.2 i totaly agree with you and every option should be validated. But do I have the right to an opinion? I dont want to disrupt the discussion about potentialy helping ideas. But when someone stats a doubt it would be nice to answer polite and engaging on the doubt. And I understand you have a history that made you get triggered but dude … I am not part of that history. Wish you the best Edit: ar last i want to state that the succes of a medicine to finish phase three is like 1-5% … so good that we have those mechanics to prevent harm to society… but this is a old discusion

radu_floricica 5y ago
Yeah, should have made it more clear that it's not personal. But look at the other comments. Look at what zarzavat is saying below. "The burden is on the inventor" - and since he mentions microplastics, I'm allowed to assume he's talking about high levels of certainty and second order effects. This has never been true in the whole human history. Ever. This itself, this "being certain every innovation is 100% harmless" is a huge departure from how things have been done, and in itself has a huge risk. I'm not talking about not having shiny new cool stuff, or not having a colony on Mars. I'm talking about apples and apples - about this kind of meta-strategies just plain costing more lives than they save. Google "FDA delenda est", for smarter people than me saying that FDA was way too conservative in the pandemic. Somebody said below that I'm mistaken about regulatory agencies delaying mRNA before the pandemic. We could of course try and get into the gritty details about what they delayed and why, but just consider one thing: Moderna had their covid vaccine ready in a matter of WEEKS. And it's the same vaccine we're using now. I don't know without googling when Pfizer had their first version, but I imagine it's around the same timeframe. Does this sound like immature technology? When two companies immediately come up with a vaccine when really needed? What is more likely, that it somehow happened right now for god knows what reason, or that they were both ready to use mRNA but couldn't? And people keep dying around us. Of Covid, of cancer, of dozen of diseases, not to mention plain old age. This is not about micro-plastics - it's lives vs lives. We have (all around the world) a much more conservative system than we need.
- bratwurst3000 5y ago
  That I can partly sign. The complexity is way out of controll and it is way to hard to get stuff done with all regulation. But somehow we need regulations. So where is the golden way? If we overregulate people will shout that potentialy beneficial things wont happen…. On the other side if we dont regulate people could be killed with harmfull stuff that could be prevented. Honestly this question is puzzling me since a while and I cant even state a direction I would take because its to complex for me….. but gut feeling says more transparancy and less complexity could work in designated areas… but … gut feeling. And as said I understand your first rage. With the past years we are all on the edge with strangers, me too. And I did somehow mumble a bit … Edit: to the vaccine part. It seems easy to develop them. A friend working at a well known biotech lab was even thinking about making one on the fast way for himself. The hard part is to scale the production and have a good one. As far as I remember those two werent the only ones… but those that worked well. But at first I was rly impressed that they got it that fast and then I was even more impressed about the scalling problem. My friend told me about it and it was fascinating.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    Yeah, home-made vaccines are a thing, but they're usually made of inactivated viruses and have some disadvantages if used on a large scale. Still a fair option, and probably one we could have used early on for populations very much at risk, where the cost-benefit is worth it. Problem is we don't do cost-benefit anymore. With Covid, pretty much any measure they approve becomes very soon mandatory. Vaccines approved for children? Vaccines are now mandatory for children (or strongly encouraged, depending on country). That's... I don't even know how to call it. Bureaucratic thinking? A properly medical approach would be to have a bunch of tools with various degrees of risk and use them as needed. It's ok if individual doctors have to make more complex decisions. It's ok if guidelines are longer than one page. Currently they seem to avoid allowing anything more complex than can be explained on TV.

radu_floricica 5y ago

Yeah, should have made it more clear that it's not personal. But look at the other comments. Look at what zarzavat is saying below. "The burden is on the inventor" - and since he mentions microplastics, I'm allowed to assume he's talking about high levels of certainty and second order effects. This has never been true in the whole human history. Ever. This itself, this "being certain every innovation is 100% harmless" is a huge departure from how things have been done, and in itself has a huge risk. I'm not talking about not having shiny new cool stuff, or not having a colony on Mars. I'm talking about apples and apples - about this kind of meta-strategies just plain costing more lives than they save. Google "FDA delenda est", for smarter people than me saying that FDA was way too conservative in the pandemic. Somebody said below that I'm mistaken about regulatory agencies delaying mRNA before the pandemic. We could of course try and get into the gritty details about what they delayed and why, but just consider one thing: Moderna had their covid vaccine ready in a matter of WEEKS. And it's the same vaccine we're using now. I don't know without googling when Pfizer had their first version, but I imagine it's around the same timeframe. Does this sound like immature technology? When two companies immediately come up with a vaccine when really needed? What is more likely, that it somehow happened right now for god knows what reason, or that they were both ready to use mRNA but couldn't? And people keep dying around us. Of Covid, of cancer, of dozen of diseases, not to mention plain old age. This is not about micro-plastics - it's lives vs lives. We have (all around the world) a much more conservative system than we need.

bratwurst3000 5y ago
That I can partly sign. The complexity is way out of controll and it is way to hard to get stuff done with all regulation. But somehow we need regulations. So where is the golden way? If we overregulate people will shout that potentialy beneficial things wont happen…. On the other side if we dont regulate people could be killed with harmfull stuff that could be prevented. Honestly this question is puzzling me since a while and I cant even state a direction I would take because its to complex for me….. but gut feeling says more transparancy and less complexity could work in designated areas… but … gut feeling. And as said I understand your first rage. With the past years we are all on the edge with strangers, me too. And I did somehow mumble a bit … Edit: to the vaccine part. It seems easy to develop them. A friend working at a well known biotech lab was even thinking about making one on the fast way for himself. The hard part is to scale the production and have a good one. As far as I remember those two werent the only ones… but those that worked well. But at first I was rly impressed that they got it that fast and then I was even more impressed about the scalling problem. My friend told me about it and it was fascinating.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Yeah, home-made vaccines are a thing, but they're usually made of inactivated viruses and have some disadvantages if used on a large scale. Still a fair option, and probably one we could have used early on for populations very much at risk, where the cost-benefit is worth it. Problem is we don't do cost-benefit anymore. With Covid, pretty much any measure they approve becomes very soon mandatory. Vaccines approved for children? Vaccines are now mandatory for children (or strongly encouraged, depending on country). That's... I don't even know how to call it. Bureaucratic thinking? A properly medical approach would be to have a bunch of tools with various degrees of risk and use them as needed. It's ok if individual doctors have to make more complex decisions. It's ok if guidelines are longer than one page. Currently they seem to avoid allowing anything more complex than can be explained on TV.