PhilGeis

Covid has a high mutation rate - up to 10X greater than the already high rate of RNA viruses in general. Mutation shows the limitation of current mRNA based vaccine technology - so narrowly focused, variants move out of efficacy range. Tho' justified in part on the rapidity of development and warranted as you say by variant generation, it still takes too long to develop and administer. Appears there is no attempt to develop.

https://ufonline.ufl.edu/degrees/undergraduate/microbiology/

Wonder at the stats for this. With vaccine(s) showing efficacy in mitigating morbidity and mortality rather than infection and the dynamics of variant expansion, to what extent would broader vaccination constrain variant generation.

Waiting 15 minutes is conventional and is driven by the majority of reactions observed and the practical aspect of maintaining folks cooperation. but certainly does not indicate absence of subsequent reactions, including a anaphylaxis. "Symptoms of anaphylaxis often occur within 15-30 minutes of vaccination, though it can sometimes take several hours for symptoms to appear." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/managing-anaphylaxis.html Where any reported subsequently? Was there a means of reporting >established for the vaccinated after exit? What was protocol for treatment - epinephrine? antihistamine? What was "successfully treated"? Recall anaphylaxis may manifest in those appearing to recover. How long did those folks stick around?

Poor surveillance reports anywhere - are poor reports. What was origin?

What does FDA have to do with this? It approves the vaccine and monitors and potentially responds to adverse repot data - https://vaers.hhs.gov/ . It would find comments such as -prob would happened anyway - and prompt and successful treatment - pretty poor. Any report would include qualification of those monitoring, whether active or passive, period through which monitoring was effected, voluntary reports from vaccinated after monitoring, specifics of reactions observed, how treated, criteria by which resolution was determined, etc. What protocol that? In any case, relevant protocols do not suggest - they are methodology. Clearly there are can be post release reactions - https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/reactogenicity.html

Everyone was observed while present, beyio Everyone was observed for a time - beyond surveillance addressed time. Adverse reaction may not be within time of survelliance. I jumped to no conclusion. Prompt and successful is subjectiuve and would not be appropriate description for reporting adverse reaction to FDA.

Doesn't change the conclusion of very rare reaction - but -an overly favorable summary. Adverse reactions are not reported in this way. Three should be reported as those observe not absolute. Reactions may have been experienced beyond surveillance. "Likely would have happened", "nothing to do" and "promptly and successfully treated" are overly-favorable speculation.

Think this is the paper by Lednicky et al. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab924/6413759?login=true - you can download the entire pdf. It's always a good idea to read the actual report if possible rather than taking second hand interpretation from media. They did not say it (viral RNA from one sample) was the same virus but that it was closely related to Vlasova et al. Malaysian virus that appeared to be ancestral. So an interesting journey - and/or maybe recombination in the one host. "We report here identification of a coronavirus of canine origin which is closely related to the Malaysian virus reported by Vlasova et al, albeit isolated in this instance from a visitor to Haiti, and with a further recombinational history." RNA viral mutation rates of 10E4 to 10E6 and coronavirus rate is reportedly much greater. It's not just limited to the existing genome but is extended by recombination. ".... Vlasova et al reported isolation of an Alphacoronavirus of apparent canine origin, with evidence of recombination with a feline coronavirus, from patients with pneumonia in Malaysia [6]. "

Behavioral measures at the individual level do not prevent - they mitigate risk. As mandates, they may have an initial impact but have not been successful even in the moderate term for the reasons you point out. They chip away at nothing.

Spread is at best transiently impacted by masks etc. - and even less so with the delta variant. They will not "keep infections low". It's merely a matter of time until a population experiences its surge. At the personal level, one may reduce risk, esp. transiently, with masks etc. At the macro/mandate level - these have not been that effective and prob even less so now with the more infective delta.

The disease will progress through unprotected populations. To the extent there is an effect re. masks, banning mass gatherings, distancing etc., it will be transient and certainly less effective vs delta than the questionable impact on the initial strain. Vaccination is the most effective control measure for limiting infection and exp. severity of disease.

studiot - viral "evolution" is the result of mutation and selection. Washing with soap or surfactants disprupts an essential general element of the virus the basic structure of the lipid coat - mutation in that aspect would be lethal. "Chemical" - assume you mean alcohol, hypochlorite and other disinfectants. These have similar primary and general denaturing effects. In any case, these factors would be less than de minimis in context of a global pandemic where mutation and potential selection are constant and exponential.

To the orignal questioin - washing hands and "chemicals" will not drive variant development.

Suggest you consider an application - relevant evaluation of efficacy in addition to MIC/MBC. There's no shortage of compounds reported in literature/patents to have "broad spectrum" efficacy at low concentrations.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3117807/what-do-sinovac-coronavirus-vaccine-efficacy-results-mean This is just a news item - perhaps ask your employer for actual report

Perhaps add aq. solubility as secondary dev objective

The only interpretation is an observable zone of inhibition +/-., please don't attempt additional interpretation. Some use solvents like DMSO or ethanol in MIC testing of materials of limited aqueous solubility - generates numbers but introduces another variable. II'm with Charon on the testing. It's not hard find materials showing some degree of inhibition in such testing. Patent and tehnical literature is full of such gee whiz reports. What will you do with materials of some antimicrobial capacity?

Biocides - including preservatives. any patents ?

How developed is this effort and to what eventual application are you thinking? Potential use as chemotherapeutic agents would be decades away but there are near term commercial applications that might find this of value. There is so little research into the latter that even early efforts get attention.

Disk diffusion (aka Kirby Bauer) does not give quantitiative results, and you should ot assume a "dead zone." You're looking at inhibition of growth. Your scenario of concentration dynamics after growth "has ceased" is not realistic - do not wate time on it. If you stuff is that isoluble you need another test protocol. Quantitative estimates can be obtained by microbial inhiibtion testing - typically determining growth in context of serially diluted the test compound in liquid (broth) growth medium inoclated with test micororganisms. Here's on group's description - https://emerypharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/mic-guide.pdf This kind of testing is largely academic - do you have a specific application in mind?

Yes - they did not look ar cultural factors - an unaddressed variable that confounds. Dismissing this uncontrolled variable as "pockets" orthodox Jews doesis not justified. Jobs - then one would have to address unemployment as well - didn;t see that addressed here. Appealing to economics is not justified - coincidence is not cause and "larger patterns" is a cop out.

Design is one element - another is performance in context. What is flow rate and how will it effectively filter enough room air (volume.time.flow) to really reduce risk.

Think we discssued this on another forum. You, can use surfactant supplementation to inhibit colony size and can count at earlier time points, marking colony foci. Think you are workmin g with A. brasiliensis 16404 - that grows well enough at 3-4 days to coount.