Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 July 17

Science desk
< July 16	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 17

stye transmission window

Stye#Cause reads Sharing of washcloths or face towels should be curtailed, to avoid spreading the infection. Can the infection be spread after the stye has healed? When can towels be shared again? I have heard 10 days from the stye onset, but I cannot find a reliable source on Google (some websites even state that styes are not infectious). --62.98.105.176 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

For your second question, sharing a towel sounds like a bad idea to me at any time.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Please assume that's not an issue (people already living together, or sleeping together, with bigger infection vectors, usually sharing towels notwithstanding the risk of an occasional stye). I'm asking for information to add to the article, unrelated to a specific case. --62.98.105.176 (talk) 09:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The advice not to share washcloths or face towels should be moved to section Stye#Prevention.  --Lambiam 13:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a request for medical advice. The OP says it isn't, but that doesn't prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

To me it doesn't look like a request for medical advice, Bugs, and the OP specifically states that they're looking to improve the article. Can you prove that it is such a request? (Obviously not, and I'm not trying to be contrarian, I just think you're wrong.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}

Also, Wikipedia has no policy or guideline that says that you cannot give out medical advice. For example, my medical advice is that you don't use Crystal Meth. It is bad for your health. We do have some restrictions, but they aren't a blanket ban on giving anyone medical advice. We aren't allowed to give dangerous medical advice -- no "injecting bleach cures coronavirus" or "stop taking your pills". We aren't allowed to claim that we are doctors or other medical professionals. Nobody connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented anywhere on Wikipedia, including refdesks, talk pages, and articles. But we are allowed to give medical advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID deaths on weekends?

Typical graphs of COVID deaths or cases like I see here: COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Progression_charts, see "No. of new daily cases" and "No. of new daily deaths" show regular up & down teeth features. Is this because of reporting differences on weekends? Or are people actually dying less on weekends? I can imagine maybe fewer diagnoses on weekends, but more actual weekend deaths doesn't really make sense to me. Staecker (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Staecker: See 'Weekend effect'. Cheers, Zindor (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No. The Weekend effect article discusses the higher mortality of patients admitted for treated to hospitals on the weekend. I don't believe it is relevant to this question about the lower reported weekend deaths.

I thought "everyone knew" this 7-day period fluctuation was due to reduced weekend reporting, but I can't seem to find a good reference for that explanation. Hmph. -- ToE 13:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4]. --Jayron32 13:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The first three sources aren't particularly useful.

#1, Reduced testing suggested as reason for weekend drop in confirmed COVID-19 deaths, discusses a 50% drop of both single-day deaths and new positive cases in Michigan on one mid-April Sunday compared to the day before, saying "... the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services says the lower daily numbers may be tied to reduced testing over the holiday weekend." That would explain the drop in positives, but not deaths, and no mention is made in the article of delayed reporting.

#2, Why the 'weekend factor' is affecting coronavirus reporting figures in Europe, deals with the Europe, saying, "there seems to be a lag over the weekend as the figures on deaths and hospitalisations work their way through the system, such that reporting on Monday is artificially low, while on Tuesday the figures seem high as they catch up with reality."

#3, Transient Drops In Reported New Coronavirus Cases: ‘Sunday Effect’, does address reporting in the US, but unlike the previous source which at least offers speculation, this one only makes note of the fluctuation without suggesting any cause. "It appears that every Sunday there’s a substantial decrease in numbers of confirmed cases from the previous day or the Friday prior to the weekend. A similar temporary decrease in deaths can be seen every weekend."

But the fourth source is on point, albeit for the UK, not the US.

#4, Understanding the data about COVID-19 related deaths, explains and contrasts DHSC and ONS statistics. The caption for slide #1 states, "The number of registered deaths reduces during weekends (and bank holidays) when deaths tend not to be registered." That is shown graphically in slide #2 which compares "ONS - Deaths by date of registration" with "ONS - Deaths by date of occurrence", showing a steady progression in the latter despite the weekend dips in the former.

I've been unable to find anything like that fourth source but for the US, most likely because "everyone knows" the dips are due to weekend reporting delays and few people feel the need to prove the obvious. -- ToE 15:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Staecker (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Popular US news reports sometimes use the phrase "weekend lag", this for example says: "Figures on Monday tend to be lower due to a slowdown in reporting over the weekend". Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are there no cute robots which are shaped like plushies?

I can find some designs of them but they're not robots - they can't move on their own. I'm thinking about something like a cat robot that is fluffy and auto hug you. Kazeita (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any referenced source, but to me it seems immediately obvious that such a toy could (in rare circumstances, while unsupervised) be dangerous to small children/babies, who might get "auto-hugged" in such a way as to injure them, say by putting pressure on an eye. We could use input from an expert on Toy safety regulation. {The poster formerly known as 87,81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.41.197 (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that there are such robots cats and kittens with realistic fur fluffyness. Googling "robot kitten" gives some interesting results like this and this.--109.166.137.83 (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also a therapeutic robot seal that will not hug you, but is meant to be hugged.  --Lambiam 08:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See [ www.aliexpress.com/item/32924413933.html ], [ www.aliexpress.com/item/32895794973.html ], [ www.aliexpress.com/item/4000940862423.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning might be a problem (although obviously soft toys often aren't machine-washable). Getting such a robot accepted for play with multiple kids from multiple families might be difficult. Proposed "soft robots" conceptualised for eventual use in elder care aren't designed like soft toys, they're made of vinyl that can be hosed down. Blythwood (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

NEOWISE comet visibility

For some reason and for several days already I can't see Comet NEOWISE in Warsaw, Poland, coors of observation are 52°16'12.5"N 20°55'51.1"E. I tried to observe at around 23:00 and at midnight, but see nothing except possibly Arcturus and a few major stars and planets. Light pollution or something else? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're actually in Warsaw, or any other major city, then light pollution will not permit you to see the comet. You will need the sky to be dark enough at least to be able to see the Big Dipper, near where the comet is currently situated, and whose stars are roughly the same apparent magnitude as the comet.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Neowise is expected to return in a few thousand years. It is possible that the people who have left Poland (or Europe, or even the planet) by then have turned off the lights prior to their extinction / diaspora.
• It should be easily visible in a few millennia for those of us who spend their post-senescent retirement on a depopulated solar satellite. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP may, like myself in the UK, have been too far north to see the comet easily when it was a morning object, because in more northerly latitudes (compared to, say, the US) the summer Sun does not get as far below the horizon, so the twilight remains brighter.

The comet is now an evening object, and is moving night-by-night more perpendicularly away from the horizon, contrasted to its nearly horizontal movement when it was a morning object (see the diagrams in this Sky & Telescope article), so the OP (and I) can hope for better luck in the next week (cloud cover permitting). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cloud cover? In the UK? What a shock. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Returned to add – Yes! Have just observed it at approx. 22:10 UTC from a suburban setting (actually my upstairs rear bedroom window). Just visible to my rather suboptimal spectacled eyes with no dark adaptation, and an impressive sight in my rubbish 7x50 binoculars. Later tonight I'll take my 25x100s and tripod to a darker site in the unlit parkland 20 minutes' walk from my house. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.41.197 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)