Your eyes have ACE2 receptors also, walk thru a cloud of droplets without eye protection and you're totally exposed. Along with a mask you can't accidentally touch an infectable part of your face. No need to come up with a complicated solution to electrocute yourself.
Is there evidence to the contrary? Just because you haven't read a paper on something doesn't it isn't the case.
If a surface is covered with viruses and you touch that surface and then rub your eyes, explain to me how you would not catch the virus if you just stuck it in your eyes.
The jury is out, better to be cautious than to be one of the ~30% of people that have lingering symptoms for months after they caught COVID19 or the 1% that die. And that 30% with lingering symptoms includes young people and peopl
You are confused, I point out an assertion is made without a shred of proof. You are talking out of your ass. Proof is required to say touching face is mechanism of infection for covid19. There are some viruses spread by contact with papers of proof, covid19 is not one of them.
How much proof is needed? Do you require that they do tests and spread live viruses on surfaces and then have people touch those surfaces to see if they catch COVID19? Because that obviously is not going to be done. There has however been tests done to show that the virus does survive for hours or days on various types of surface
Proof is required to say touching face is mechanism of infection for covid19
The virus attaches to ACE2 receptors to infect a person, the face has ACE2 receptors. These things are
Test like that indeed have been done with viruses, look it up.
You are being illogical and unscientific. You say. **The virus attaches to ACE2 receptors to infect a person, the face has ACE2 receptors.**
That is proof of nothing regarding infection. Covid19 is not known to spread that way.
The virus attaches to ACE2 receptors in the lungs and causes infection if a very significant amount present. That is the truth, there is a minimal load needed to cause infection. Surfaces don't do it, touching face doesn
You have no evidence to support your assertion whilst there is clearly evidence to show that corona-viruses can be caught by face touching. So who is being illogical here?
Liar, you are the one with zero evidence and the virus is claimed by experts to be spread by droplets in breath only, full stop. It's why packages and money aren't a concern. You are asserting someone with nothing to back you, I am asserting something with proof. Stop spewing misinformation and lies.
no evidence covid19 infects from face touching. nor that eye covering is needed. good masks help some, distance is most important of all.
In vitro evidence here. [scmp.com] I'm sure if you dig you can find the published paper. I also recall reading about a doctor that got infected in the early stages by rubbing his eye. I believe that was what triggered the overblown response about eye protection, but it would be wrong to take no precaution at all.
I've wondered about the occasional suggestions that one can get infected via the eyes. If so, one would expect to be able to find data about people wearing eyeglasses having a lower infection rate. That's such a large subset of the population that it should be easy to get a sample big enough to detect even a small effect. I don't know if anyone has looked for this.
I've wondered about the occasional suggestions that one can get infected via the eyes. If so, one would expect to be able to find data about people wearing eyeglasses having a lower infection rate. That's such a large subset of the population that it should be easy to get a sample big enough to detect even a small effect. I don't know if anyone has looked for this.
Eyeglasses don't generally cover your eyes, they provide small barriers directly in front of them--recent styles being much smaller than in the past. Fluid dynamics being what they are, I don't think prescription eyeglasses or most sunglasses would do much.
Wear eye protection with your mask. (Score:3)
Re: Wear eye protection with your mask. (Score:0)
Re: Wear eye protection with your mask. (Score:2)
no evidence covid19 infects from face touching. nor that eye covering is needed. good masks help some, distance is most important of all.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there evidence to the contrary? Just because you haven't read a paper on something doesn't it isn't the case.
If a surface is covered with viruses and you touch that surface and then rub your eyes, explain to me how you would not catch the virus if you just stuck it in your eyes.
The jury is out, better to be cautious than to be one of the ~30% of people that have lingering symptoms for months after they caught COVID19 or the 1% that die. And that 30% with lingering symptoms includes young people and peopl
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused, I point out an assertion is made without a shred of proof. You are talking out of your ass. Proof is required to say touching face is mechanism of infection for covid19. There are some viruses spread by contact with papers of proof, covid19 is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
How much proof is needed? Do you require that they do tests and spread live viruses on surfaces and then have people touch those surfaces to see if they catch COVID19? Because that obviously is not going to be done. There has however been tests done to show that the virus does survive for hours or days on various types of surface
The virus attaches to ACE2 receptors to infect a person, the face has ACE2 receptors. These things are
Re: (Score:2)
Test like that indeed have been done with viruses, look it up.
You are being illogical and unscientific. You say. **The virus attaches to ACE2 receptors to infect a person, the face has ACE2 receptors.**
That is proof of nothing regarding infection. Covid19 is not known to spread that way.
The virus attaches to ACE2 receptors in the lungs and causes infection if a very significant amount present. That is the truth, there is a minimal load needed to cause infection. Surfaces don't do it, touching face doesn
Re: (Score:2)
You have no evidence to support your assertion whilst there is clearly evidence to show that corona-viruses can be caught by face touching. So who is being illogical here?
Re: (Score:2)
Liar, you are the one with zero evidence and the virus is claimed by experts to be spread by droplets in breath only, full stop. It's why packages and money aren't a concern. You are asserting someone with nothing to back you, I am asserting something with proof. Stop spewing misinformation and lies.
Re: (Score:2)
no evidence covid19 infects from face touching. nor that eye covering is needed. good masks help some, distance is most important of all.
In vitro evidence here. [scmp.com] I'm sure if you dig you can find the published paper. I also recall reading about a doctor that got infected in the early stages by rubbing his eye. I believe that was what triggered the overblown response about eye protection, but it would be wrong to take no precaution at all.
Re: Wear eye protection with your mask. (Score:2)
I've wondered about the occasional suggestions that one can get infected via the eyes. If so, one would expect to be able to find data about people wearing eyeglasses having a lower infection rate. That's such a large subset of the population that it should be easy to get a sample big enough to detect even a small effect. I don't know if anyone has looked for this.
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered about the occasional suggestions that one can get infected via the eyes. If so, one would expect to be able to find data about people wearing eyeglasses having a lower infection rate. That's such a large subset of the population that it should be easy to get a sample big enough to detect even a small effect. I don't know if anyone has looked for this.
Eyeglasses don't generally cover your eyes, they provide small barriers directly in front of them--recent styles being much smaller than in the past. Fluid dynamics being what they are, I don't think prescription eyeglasses or most sunglasses would do much.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use my eyes to lick my fingers.