'Somebody' (Fauci? CDC?) must've clued them in on the uselessness of masks in 'stopping' the spread of the bug. The one that doesn't seem to be out-in-the-wild, since no peer-reviewed paper I've rea yet indicates the source of their sample to have come from a patient - only some other lab.
Mask pore size: 300 nm. 'bug' size: reportedly ranges from 90 nm - 125 nm (which itself is suspicious, since the 29k+ bp genome would code for a fairly uniform shell size - makes me wonder exactly what electron microscopists are seeing) -MM
'Somebody' (Fauci? CDC?) must've clued them in on the uselessness of masks in 'stopping' the spread of the bug. The one that doesn't seem to be out-in-the-wild, since no peer-reviewed paper I've rea yet indicates the source of their sample to have come from a patient - only some other lab.
ReplyDeleteMask pore size: 300 nm.
'bug' size: reportedly ranges from 90 nm - 125 nm (which itself is suspicious, since the 29k+ bp genome would code for a fairly uniform shell size - makes me wonder exactly what electron microscopists are seeing)
-MM
When you obscure celebrities' faces, you may as well just put them behind the counter at the Burger King.
ReplyDelete"When you obscure celebrities' faces, you may as well just put them behind the counter at the Burger King."
ReplyDeleteThat job's way too technical for some of them.