Preheat and homogenization were not testing in these processes. Both are steps used in most US milk that would likely inactivate the virus. Moral of the story is still you are an idiot if you are drinking raw milk.

Fragments of the virus that are being found in about 20% of all milk sampled. These fragments have not been shown to be enough to make anyone sick. The fact that we're finding fragments and not intact viruses in store bought milk is a good indication that the various processes used for milk in most locations is doing the job it was intended to do.

And most important of all: This is the current state of evidence gathered on this topic, that state could change with various factors at play and/or the addition of new evidence. Because apparently for some people they have forgotten that "things change as time progresses".

Well, that's why raw or flash pasteurized milk is almost impossible to get into supermarkets here in Germany. The regulations are crazy, if it's possible at all.

So as always with zoonotic diseases, I will continue to not consume dead animals or animal secretions to remove one threat vector. Got it.

Everyone I know who's interested in raw milk probably has a few crates of ivermectin left over from the pandemic...should be plenty to keep them safe from the flu, too. /s

So glad I drink oat and almond milk

Why we can’t just make synthetic milk and leave those creatures alone after so many centuries of hentai slavery

The questions I had are:

• Do we use flash pasteurisation in the UK?
• How high is the residual risk for flash pasteurised milk?

Yes we do use flash pasteurisation in the UK.

https://www.dairycouncil.co.uk/who-we-are/ni-dairy/field-to-fridge/pasteurisation

Residual risk for flash pasteurised milk is high enough to be concerning, but the study didn't follow exactly the same process as industry does during pasteurisation, and those extra steps may also help to kill the virus. So we probably need another study to add in those other steps and see if the virus survives or not.

Not ideal though.

Heating the milk to 72 degrees Celsius, or 181 degrees Fahrenheit, for 15 or 20 seconds — conditions that approximated flash pasteurization — greatly reduced levels of the virus in the milk, but it didn’t inactivate it completely.

Milk samples heated for 15 or 20 seconds were still able to infect incubated chicken eggs, a test the US Food and Drug Administration has called the gold-standard for determining whether viruses remain infectious in milk.

“But, we emphasize that the conditions used in our laboratory study are not identical to the large-scale industrial treatment of raw milk,” senior study author Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, a virologist who specializes in the study of flu and Ebola, said in an email.

That’s a good reason not to panic over the study findings, said Lakdawala.

Lakdawala said that commercial flash pasteurization involves a preheating step, which wasn’t done here. It also involves homogenization, a process that emulsifies the fat globules in milk so the cream won’t separate. Both of those steps would probably make it harder for the virus to survive, but she adds that the results of this study suggest full process of commercial flash pasteurization should be done “with all the steps in place.”