Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection(cdc.gov)
cdc.gov
Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html
152 comments
You had me nodding along until last paragraph, where I can’t help but ask you to remind me what the population of AUS is, and the population density. Aren’t you also on an island with relatively harsh immigration policies?
Obsessively cleaning bags from the grocery store and cereal boxes may not be the explanation for why your COVID experience seems saintly compared to contiguous regions with 10x the population and 40-50x the population density.
Not saying it isn’t horrific out here, but not all of us live on a desert island in Oceania. :/ Greenland has faired even better than AUS but I doubt it’s because they have better surface disinfecting practices, just less surfaces and people in general compared to AUS.
Obsessively cleaning bags from the grocery store and cereal boxes may not be the explanation for why your COVID experience seems saintly compared to contiguous regions with 10x the population and 40-50x the population density.
Not saying it isn’t horrific out here, but not all of us live on a desert island in Oceania. :/ Greenland has faired even better than AUS but I doubt it’s because they have better surface disinfecting practices, just less surfaces and people in general compared to AUS.
> Not saying it isn’t horrific out here, but not all of us live on a desert island in Oceania. :/ Greenland has faired even better than AUS but I doubt it’s because they have better surface disinfecting practices, just less surfaces and people in general compared to AUS.
All of this. So many people are holding up AUS and NZ as the way the rest of the world should have handled it. But as you correctly say, they're two isolated countries on the bottom of the planet, no land borders, no ferry traffic from neighbouring countries, low population density, and also largely self sufficient.
Stopping people entering and leaving AUS/NZ is trivial versus Europe or the USA. Shut down your borders for months and you've solved the problem. Do that in the USA or Europe, and you'll have empty shelves and chaos.
All of this. So many people are holding up AUS and NZ as the way the rest of the world should have handled it. But as you correctly say, they're two isolated countries on the bottom of the planet, no land borders, no ferry traffic from neighbouring countries, low population density, and also largely self sufficient.
Stopping people entering and leaving AUS/NZ is trivial versus Europe or the USA. Shut down your borders for months and you've solved the problem. Do that in the USA or Europe, and you'll have empty shelves and chaos.
Firstly, population density of the whole country is irrelevant. Population density of urban centres (e.g. Sydney + Melb > 10M pop.), is comparable if not greater than many cities in the US. We are largely self-sufficient for most food stuffs. I assume most of the US is too (I doubt that closing your borders would lead to empty food shelves). But we are entirely not self-sufficient for just about anything that's manufactured (the bulk of which comes from Asia, mainly China). We shut our borders to people (mostly) not goods. We also had governments that were willing to make politically very unpopular decisions based on the advice they were getting at the time. And the more the outcomes diverged between what we were seeing and what the rest of the world was experiencing, it became less politically damaging to make those kinds of calls (even more so because there was largely bipartisan agreement on the macro decisions even if details varied across states).
I live in Melbourne and went through 2 multi-month lockdowns. The first was 3 months, the second was 5 months. It may be comforting to think that it was "trivial" for us to control the spread of COVID, but I assure you it didn't fucking feel trivial 5 months into the 2nd lockdown.
I live in Melbourne and went through 2 multi-month lockdowns. The first was 3 months, the second was 5 months. It may be comforting to think that it was "trivial" for us to control the spread of COVID, but I assure you it didn't fucking feel trivial 5 months into the 2nd lockdown.
> but I assure you it didn't fucking feel trivial 5 months into the 2nd lockdown.
I wrote that it is trivial to prevent people entering and leaving AUS/NZ, as you also stated in your comment "We shut our borders to people (mostly) not goods."
I did NOT write it was trivial "locking down" cities. Europe is under going similar lockdowns, so Australia is far from alone. According to the press, there are 30-40,000 of your fellow citizens that still have not been able to return home 12 months after all this started, precisely for the reasons above.
> population density of the whole country is irrelevant.
It's completely relevant. Even more so that if you live in Perth, you don't just jump in a car and drive to, say, Sydney, whereas in Europe you can drive from London to Birmingham in a couple of hours, or Paris to Brussels, and so on. Australian towns and cities are very widely spread compared to Europe and the USA. Which is reflected in the speed of transmission (and lack of) across the country.
I wrote that it is trivial to prevent people entering and leaving AUS/NZ, as you also stated in your comment "We shut our borders to people (mostly) not goods."
I did NOT write it was trivial "locking down" cities. Europe is under going similar lockdowns, so Australia is far from alone. According to the press, there are 30-40,000 of your fellow citizens that still have not been able to return home 12 months after all this started, precisely for the reasons above.
> population density of the whole country is irrelevant.
It's completely relevant. Even more so that if you live in Perth, you don't just jump in a car and drive to, say, Sydney, whereas in Europe you can drive from London to Birmingham in a couple of hours, or Paris to Brussels, and so on. Australian towns and cities are very widely spread compared to Europe and the USA. Which is reflected in the speed of transmission (and lack of) across the country.
You underestimate the amount of interstate traffic here, especially on the east coast. The real reason we squelched transmission was the highly unpopular but rigorously enforced state border closures. That is a political and economic choice not a reflection of geography. And it was done so, by state governments of both political persuasions, despite the barrage of constant criticism from the Murdoch press.
It has nothing to do with population density. Other continents have fared much better than Europe, North America, and South America [1]. Many of the world's densest cities are on these continents.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_M...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_M...
I think the point of this is to focus on countermeasures that work, because if you divide your attention wrong, you can start approaching something like a sanitization-theatre, that looks like you are doing impactful things but in reality it is mostly for show.
I remember Zeynep Tufekci ranting about a school where they had strict procedure for doing a weekly deep cleaning, but no guidelines on ventilation.
I remember Zeynep Tufekci ranting about a school where they had strict procedure for doing a weekly deep cleaning, but no guidelines on ventilation.
I'm in the US and the death toll is horrific for me to think about.
Nobody is perfect but certainly our previous leadership did a great job of proving just how critical it is that world leaders understand or at least believe in science and facts.
I've seen some Australian news outlet coverage via YouTube and can draw some pretty close parallels to a well known news outlet ironically named after a clever animal in the US. In my mind, this means the seeds of misinformation and a rise in the same kind of political environment are quite possible there too.
Nobody is perfect but certainly our previous leadership did a great job of proving just how critical it is that world leaders understand or at least believe in science and facts.
I've seen some Australian news outlet coverage via YouTube and can draw some pretty close parallels to a well known news outlet ironically named after a clever animal in the US. In my mind, this means the seeds of misinformation and a rise in the same kind of political environment are quite possible there too.
Murdoch runs the same playbook in the US, UK and Australia. He’s an Aussie.
I’m fairly certain information like this or similar was communicated very early on in the pandemic. A lot of people I know were sanitizing things from the grocery store for the first few weeks but then it quickly spread that surface transmission was very rare so everyone stopped.
We've continued cleaning deliveries just to be double-safe, but yes I got this rough impression fairly early on. Glad to see it confirmed with more data.
Yeah, same. It's kind of become a mindset now, and the way I see it, the habit is a net positive so I will likely retain it for years to come.
Using the same time to just lift a small weight or do a few squats in place will probably have 1000x the benefit in Quality Adjusted Life Years.
Yeah, an extra fifty minutes of life instead of an extra three seconds.
Put the grocery bags on the floor, squat down to clean them. Two birds, one stone.
Opportunity cost. Keep in mind that those conditional probabilities multiply:
Surface has been contaminated * chance of transmission * chance of dying
All three are (for most people here) similarly small numbers. Do you want to spend your time doing something that can save you with probability < 1/(10^15)?
Surface has been contaminated * chance of transmission * chance of dying
All three are (for most people here) similarly small numbers. Do you want to spend your time doing something that can save you with probability < 1/(10^15)?
I don't know why "chance of dying" is there. Long-term damage is a possibility. Hell, even having a fever for 3 days is a real (but much lower than death) cost. I'm not worried about the fever, but I am worried about lung, brain or heart damage.
I think the idea is that you're cleaning not just Covid-19, but also any other kind of contaminant
There is bacteria everywhere in your house, on your skin, inside of you, on every single surface on planet Earth.
The idea was to keep Covid out, any other contaminant you think you're getting rid of has already breached your security. In fact, bactericide usage will select for stronger and more resistant bacteria.
What you need is a clean room, otherwise it's a futile exercise.
The idea was to keep Covid out, any other contaminant you think you're getting rid of has already breached your security. In fact, bactericide usage will select for stronger and more resistant bacteria.
What you need is a clean room, otherwise it's a futile exercise.
People largely weren’t doing this 18 months ago and many started doing it around 12 months ago; what changed their mind?
Common diseases like the flu were always unpleasant, but you especially don't want to get them during a pandemic. I'm sure a lot of us started sanitizing surfaces when it was believed that's how covid spread, but it's been really nice not getting sick for a year now and I for one will keep doing so long after the pandemic is over.
Please provide evidence that sanitizing surfaces prevented you from getting sick.
Spend a year licking dirty doorknobs. If you also don't get sick, I'll consider my hypothesis disproven.
Care to tell me how it is a net positive? What kind of germs/virussus are you cleaning off that you wouldn't have come in contact with in the grocery store itself?
I was mostly talking about deliveries, but fair point.
A net positive in what sense? What is positive about it?
Oh I definitely won't be doing it any more once I'm fully vaccinated. I just like to be one or two levels of precaution above the common advice because getting long-COVID and potentially ruining my life at 29 is one of my worst nightmares right now.
I am not sure that's true. In fact applying hydroalcoholic gels regularly is still recommended and often mandatory in many places (I was not allowed in at my dentist last week if I did not use it).
I don't know (or heard about) anyone who wiped down a cereal box or similar in the last year. This probably varies by country and the communication that was there early last year.
I haven't wiped down anything shelf-stable in the last year, but Fauci said early on he throws packages in the corner for 3 days before touching them. It costs little for me to follow that rule, so I just buy cereal when I still have at least 3 days worth.
hanselot(1)
The headline is very misleading. The actual text contains
the relative risk of fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is
considered low compared with direct contact, droplet
transmission, or airborne transmission 1, 2. However, it
is not clear what proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are
acquired through surface transmission.The actual text also contains
> Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection [7], [8], [9].
How is that not only misleading, but "very" misleading? The headline appears directly in the text almost word-for-word.
And the conclusion I drew from the headline seems about right. At worst, I think someone could miss the context of "each contact" with a contaminated surface, but I still wouldn't call this very misleading.
> Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection [7], [8], [9].
How is that not only misleading, but "very" misleading? The headline appears directly in the text almost word-for-word.
And the conclusion I drew from the headline seems about right. At worst, I think someone could miss the context of "each contact" with a contaminated surface, but I still wouldn't call this very misleading.
But what is the probability of becoming infected after a direct contact with an infected person. Surely, it's < 1.
EDIT: I mean if an infected postman gives you a package what is the ratio that you will get infected by direct contact versus the surface of the package? Assuming you won't wash your hands. 10:1?
EDIT: I mean if an infected postman gives you a package what is the ratio that you will get infected by direct contact versus the surface of the package? Assuming you won't wash your hands. 10:1?
“Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection.”
120 items on my average delivery, assuming a driver or stacker is infected that could mean every item is contaminated. I touch them 1-2 times to put them away, 3-4 times as i open and use the items.. So that could be 720 'touches', and that may be cheating as i am counting my many fingers as 1 and i don't live alone. So each contaminated delivery could risk infection as much as 1 in 14 (10,000/720). Through this pandemic i have had 21 deliveries. The twenty minutes it takes to wash them seems a very reasonable precaution.
Do you also sanitize your door knob, handle, pantry door handle, fridge/freezer handle, faucet controls, etc? Merely washing your hands when you’re done stowing items seems to be a better strategy.
Also it doesn’t stand to reason that you treat each item in your grocery delivery as having disjoint probability of harboring infectious virus. That’s clearly not true in the real world.
Also it doesn’t stand to reason that you treat each item in your grocery delivery as having disjoint probability of harboring infectious virus. That’s clearly not true in the real world.
I sanitize the items in the garage, as i fill a sanitized crate, then my hands, then lift them into the house. Its quick and easy, it also allows me to reduce contact with the driver.
To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+. even if i wash my hands after stowing away and subtract that number I'd probably be left with an average number of touches well over 6 after stowing.
To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+. even if i wash my hands after stowing away and subtract that number I'd probably be left with an average number of touches well over 6 after stowing.
I assume these numbers are for the lifetime of the product. Perhaps a more reasonable assumption would be to only consider touches within the first 3 days, since the surface contamination is essentially non-viable past that point.
I’m not sure you can count the probability this way. Each touch is a separate event, and for each touch you have 1 in 10000 chance of infection. So, it’s 1 * 720 / 10000 * 720.
Maybe its not that accurate to count it that way, but 1 in 10,000 would mean to the layman that every 10,000 times you do this you should expect 1 case of C19, and i do this at least 720 times at every delivery. With more than 20 deliveries through the pandemic last year i have potentially touched 14,400 contaminated items which would practically guarantee a case of C19. Now i know not all of these would be contaminated, but i don't know which or how much. And since delivery drivers in my area rarely wear masks even at the house, i don't have a high amount of confidence in any delivered items.
-To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+.
-To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+.
It's around 23.69% if my math is correct.
I mean, it's not nothing, but I wouldn't say "practically guarantee".
I mean, it's not nothing, but I wouldn't say "practically guarantee".
If you touch a parcel a second time then the first time doesn't count to anything. It's 1/10k again. It's like with a lottery: you can buy a coupon every day for years and win nothing, because every draw resets your chances.
48 million to one lottery odds, running everyday I'd expect to win once in the next 131,506 years (48m/356). -this is why you don't win for 'years'. I'd also expect one winner for every 48 million players in a day.
Now a 1/10k taken twice is 2/10k, so taken 14 thousand times it is 14k/10k. Okay so this isn't technically how you add statistics, but its close enough to see the utility in washing items.
Now a 1/10k taken twice is 2/10k, so taken 14 thousand times it is 14k/10k. Okay so this isn't technically how you add statistics, but its close enough to see the utility in washing items.
The are lotteries with bigger chances, but in all of them some numbers will be repeated over the years, and yours may never occur. You would have to use all possible combination for one draw to be sure. That's why it's not unusual to have draws without winner, sometimes a few in a row.
It's a flawed analogy, I admit, but with the parcel you would have to palpate its entire surface and lick the finger after every touch to infect yourself. Just touching it for the second time doesn't double the chance of infection. You may touch the same uncontaminated part you'd touched already (crossing the same numbers twice), the number of virus particles you've moved might not be enough to infect you, that you might have washed your hands in between the touches, and so on... Obviously, the more you "interact" with an item the chances grow, but certainly not as fast as you suggest. Add a time limit to all of that, and the fact that for every next item it's all back to 1/10k (second draw) - practically there's no way this number will ever grow over 1/1.
Excuse the non-fact-checked argument as I can't find a link now but I recently read that couriers and mailmen actually get ill less often than factory workers (and most of them caught the virus via airborne transmission). I don't mind if you wash everything you bring home from outside, but I don't see point in that, and certainly I wouldn't recommend that to anyone. It's wiser to focus on preventing airborne transmission than to waste time and efforts on avoiding the least probable risk.
It's a flawed analogy, I admit, but with the parcel you would have to palpate its entire surface and lick the finger after every touch to infect yourself. Just touching it for the second time doesn't double the chance of infection. You may touch the same uncontaminated part you'd touched already (crossing the same numbers twice), the number of virus particles you've moved might not be enough to infect you, that you might have washed your hands in between the touches, and so on... Obviously, the more you "interact" with an item the chances grow, but certainly not as fast as you suggest. Add a time limit to all of that, and the fact that for every next item it's all back to 1/10k (second draw) - practically there's no way this number will ever grow over 1/1.
Excuse the non-fact-checked argument as I can't find a link now but I recently read that couriers and mailmen actually get ill less often than factory workers (and most of them caught the virus via airborne transmission). I don't mind if you wash everything you bring home from outside, but I don't see point in that, and certainly I wouldn't recommend that to anyone. It's wiser to focus on preventing airborne transmission than to waste time and efforts on avoiding the least probable risk.
[deleted]
Not a great headline. What if I touch thousands of surfaces?
Better (and based on the text): Few SARS-Cov-2 transmissions reported to have been via surface transmission.
And note: However, it is not clear what proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are acquired through surface transmission. Probably not many.
Better (and based on the text): Few SARS-Cov-2 transmissions reported to have been via surface transmission.
And note: However, it is not clear what proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are acquired through surface transmission. Probably not many.
> What if I touch thousands of surfaces?
According to the article, that's probably risky if all of those thousands of surfaces are infected.
But you make a good point: I have no idea how many infected surfaces I touched last week/month/year.
According to the article, that's probably risky if all of those thousands of surfaces are infected.
But you make a good point: I have no idea how many infected surfaces I touched last week/month/year.
Being somewhat conservative, recently in the US there have been an average of around 75000 new cases of covid reported per day. Let's assume there's a 14 day window of infectivity (in reality this period is shorter but there are also unreported cases) so there's a little over 1 million people in the US who can infect surfaces at any given time. Pretending for a moment that these are evenly distributed, that's a 0.3% chance of any given person having covid. If a surface remains infected for 3 days, that would mean that 230 people would need to come into contact with it every 3 days for it to have a 50% chance of an infected person coming in contact with it. This would average out to 77 people per day. If 1000 people traffic a location over an 8 hour day, the odds that an infected person has contacted the surface in the past hour are around 31%. Now the odds of a an infected person actually contaminating a surface they touch are probably lower still, but this would seem to indicate most surfaces in public places have significant likelihood of being unsafe.
Even better would be using the article’s actual title: [1]
“SARS-CoV-2 and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments”
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
“SARS-CoV-2 and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments”
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Few SARS-Cov-2 transmissions reported to have been via surface transmission.
I haven't seen a single case of reported surface transmission.
There was this case in a New Zealand quarantine hotel, where they first suspected a rubbish bin lid, which the persons had touched 20 hours apart. But now they think it was air moving, by opening the hotel room door from the room to the corridor, and then to the next room, when that door was opened right after.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/apr/04/how-new-zeala...
I haven't seen a single case of reported surface transmission.
There was this case in a New Zealand quarantine hotel, where they first suspected a rubbish bin lid, which the persons had touched 20 hours apart. But now they think it was air moving, by opening the hotel room door from the room to the corridor, and then to the next room, when that door was opened right after.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/apr/04/how-new-zeala...
If someone touched infected surface every day during the past year, their risk of being contaminated would be about 3.6% according to this study (10^-4 at each contact). Touching twice per day would not double the risk, since the process is not linear. So 3.6% is a a kind of absolute maximum.
Note the paper suggest the real rate could be lower. For instance, a 10^-5 risk per contact would mean <0.4% risk for 365 contacts.
Note the paper suggest the real rate could be lower. For instance, a 10^-5 risk per contact would mean <0.4% risk for 365 contacts.
That's the odds if a person touched one surface every day. Touching the same surface twice would not double the risk, but touching two distinct surfaces would. Most people touch a lot more than one surface per day.
Plus the report is referring to incidents of contact with contaminated surfaces not some random individual surface.
Against the argument of "it doesn't hurt to disinfect": it does have some negative effects.
Businesses have "installed" sanitizers and clean a bit more often. Correct air ventilation is mostly too costly, too inconvenient or outright impossible. But since the business is already doing _something_, "complying", there is a false sense of security.
Businesses have "installed" sanitizers and clean a bit more often. Correct air ventilation is mostly too costly, too inconvenient or outright impossible. But since the business is already doing _something_, "complying", there is a false sense of security.
the relative risk of fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is considered low compared with direct contact, droplet transmission, or airborne transmission 1, 2. However, it is not clear what proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections are acquired through surface transmission.
Non native english speaker, in this case is 'Airborne' transmission meant to mean the same as transmission through aerosol particles?
Here’s what they mean: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
(Sorry for just pasting a link, but I think it’ll be more clear than any summary I could make.)
(Sorry for just pasting a link, but I think it’ll be more clear than any summary I could make.)
Indeed the link was a lot more useful in clarifying terms. It's a shame that the media themselves misuse the term aerosol in this context.
Watch as HN takes its signature air of superiority and says "I called it last year it was so obvious smh".
1. Basic safety principles mean that as long as we're not sure, keep doing it
2. You may have been enjoying a year surprisingly free of common colds, of flus, and many more other illnesses. These are absolutely transmitted through surfaces, and increasing hygiene standards is the best way to get rid of them.
Keep washing your hands you filthy animals.
1. Basic safety principles mean that as long as we're not sure, keep doing it
2. You may have been enjoying a year surprisingly free of common colds, of flus, and many more other illnesses. These are absolutely transmitted through surfaces, and increasing hygiene standards is the best way to get rid of them.
Keep washing your hands you filthy animals.
This. I’ve enjoyed public accommodations/shared spaces paying more attention to hygiene. I’m disappointed that they may revert after numbers decline. I don’t mind masks preventing people from spitting on you when they talk, nor airlines filtering air better or restaurants attempting to clean their environment better. All for the betterment of our experiences, though who knows - we may all develop weaker immune systems in the long run. Remember when there was talk of the harm from overusing disinfectants? Haven’t heard that in a while, but I’m sure the impacts are no less true today. Kids who grow up with dishwashers in the home have more allergies. Maybe kids born in late 2019 will have some interesting immune system impacts.
> as long as we're not sure, keep doing it
There are diminishing returns in this caution principle, while the harm caused by the deluge of disinfection products on the environment and ourselves certainly adds-up.
You can never be 100% sure you won't get infected through surface. By this logic you should spray sanitizers everywhere all the time.
There are diminishing returns in this caution principle, while the harm caused by the deluge of disinfection products on the environment and ourselves certainly adds-up.
You can never be 100% sure you won't get infected through surface. By this logic you should spray sanitizers everywhere all the time.
Right, how could I forget being pedantic and thinking that pushing arguments to their logical extreme is an argument in itself. This is HN after all.
Disinfecting and cleaning your hands (even with soap. Noone's told you to douse your hands in alcohol every hour of the day) is as much for your protection as it is for others. Additionally, you can expect an average person to wash their hands maybe three to four times a day. Considering we have doctors and nurses that do this on the order of tens of times a day (and they all do it with hydroalcoholic solutions, which is the one thing that will damage your hands), the pretend harm caused to ourselves is bullshit.
Disinfecting and cleaning your hands (even with soap. Noone's told you to douse your hands in alcohol every hour of the day) is as much for your protection as it is for others. Additionally, you can expect an average person to wash their hands maybe three to four times a day. Considering we have doctors and nurses that do this on the order of tens of times a day (and they all do it with hydroalcoholic solutions, which is the one thing that will damage your hands), the pretend harm caused to ourselves is bullshit.
That was pedantic indeed, sorry.
My main concern really is the over-cleaning of surfaces. Those products are nasty.
My main concern really is the over-cleaning of surfaces. Those products are nasty.
This could explain why Orange County, Florida has relatively low transmission rates in spite of Disney World being open to hundreds of thousands of people a day. Mostly outdoor parks, social distancing rules, masks required, but lots of shared surfaces.
Did anyone call this early on? Would’ve been nice to hear a free and open debate from the start—I don’t recall seeing one. There are costs to doing things everywhere on the planet “just in case.”
Did anyone call this early on
Not in my area. That is, scientists here would beasically say: we don't know yet how well surface transmission works, so better take precautions. Which in hindsight still is the best approach in my opinion. Took a couple of months (IIRC) before it became well-accepted that chances (while existing) were fairly low. Not sure, but 'free and open' debate sounds like you want to have laymen have their say in things like this which is, again in my opinion, a bad idea. Only biologists/chemists/virologists/... have the fundamental knowledge it takes to reason about this without making mistakes. And between them there definitely was a debate, and they came to the same conclusion.
Not in my area. That is, scientists here would beasically say: we don't know yet how well surface transmission works, so better take precautions. Which in hindsight still is the best approach in my opinion. Took a couple of months (IIRC) before it became well-accepted that chances (while existing) were fairly low. Not sure, but 'free and open' debate sounds like you want to have laymen have their say in things like this which is, again in my opinion, a bad idea. Only biologists/chemists/virologists/... have the fundamental knowledge it takes to reason about this without making mistakes. And between them there definitely was a debate, and they came to the same conclusion.
I remember trying sort things out early on. Unlike most people I used to work in the contract sterilization industry. Need 100 pallets of catheters sterilized a week? No problem we got gas chambers the size of bus. So I know a little little bit about killing bugs.
All that really bought me was seeing the 'debate' was between people that knew far less than the little I knew. Worse what most of what they thought they knew was wrong.
The big mistake was assuming that this new virus is just like this other virus they were more familiar with. Lay people and a lot of doctors used influenza as a model. Wrong. People who knew better thought the virus would behave like a not as bad SARS-Covid1 or MERS. Also wrong[1].
My conclusion a year ago was the best strategy was to take all the precautions until further notice. I thought of the doctors quip that the problem with medicine is half the treatments we give patients doesn't work. The real problem is we don't know which half. Taking all reasonable precautions then is always the correct answer.
[1] Public heath officials in the west[2] assumed that SARS-Covid2 only spread between symptomatic people like MERS and SARS-Covid1 does. That bit them on the ass but hard.
[2] Public health officials in China highly suspected asymptomatic transmission early on. But western officials categorically dismissed Chinese researchers opinions. (Big mistake #2)
All that really bought me was seeing the 'debate' was between people that knew far less than the little I knew. Worse what most of what they thought they knew was wrong.
The big mistake was assuming that this new virus is just like this other virus they were more familiar with. Lay people and a lot of doctors used influenza as a model. Wrong. People who knew better thought the virus would behave like a not as bad SARS-Covid1 or MERS. Also wrong[1].
My conclusion a year ago was the best strategy was to take all the precautions until further notice. I thought of the doctors quip that the problem with medicine is half the treatments we give patients doesn't work. The real problem is we don't know which half. Taking all reasonable precautions then is always the correct answer.
[1] Public heath officials in the west[2] assumed that SARS-Covid2 only spread between symptomatic people like MERS and SARS-Covid1 does. That bit them on the ass but hard.
[2] Public health officials in China highly suspected asymptomatic transmission early on. But western officials categorically dismissed Chinese researchers opinions. (Big mistake #2)
Asymptomatic transmission was indeed suspected but a german doctor actually discovered a case and published the first paper about it. A chinese business woman with no symptoms had infected co-workers while visiting the company's headquarters in Bavaria. She developed the disease only after returning to China (but had reported jet-lag which might have covered up some early symptoms).
Paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001468
Story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/world/europe/coronavirus-...
Paper: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001468
Story: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/world/europe/coronavirus-...
I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion?
How is that possible?
How is that possible?
Easy. You end up with accumulating evidence showing that it is difficult to pull off surfaces in normal cases, and from contact tracing with the vast majority of spread explained by droplets. As evidence accumulates, people get less and less worried about fomites.
And I'm sure that not all came to the same conclusion. You can probably find some that think 5G is a major contributor. But a broad consensus forms, where people start to think of surface sterilization as somewhere between "not important at all" or "only mildly important" as a measure to prevent COVID spread.
But the precautionary principle means, until the evidence is in--- maybe using protective measures that are effective against other viruses is a sane thing to do until we know more.
And I'm sure that not all came to the same conclusion. You can probably find some that think 5G is a major contributor. But a broad consensus forms, where people start to think of surface sterilization as somewhere between "not important at all" or "only mildly important" as a measure to prevent COVID spread.
But the precautionary principle means, until the evidence is in--- maybe using protective measures that are effective against other viruses is a sane thing to do until we know more.
I never said laypeople
No, but you also didn't specify the people taking part in the debate. So I just tried to interpret it and suggested 2 possibilities.
All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion?
How is that possible?
Because it makes most sense. Note that the conclusion was not "the virus spreads by surface all the time". It was: "we don't know for sure (which was completely correct at the time), so better safe than sorry".
No, but you also didn't specify the people taking part in the debate. So I just tried to interpret it and suggested 2 possibilities.
All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion?
How is that possible?
Because it makes most sense. Note that the conclusion was not "the virus spreads by surface all the time". It was: "we don't know for sure (which was completely correct at the time), so better safe than sorry".
It sounds like you’re assuming I’d want unqualified people to comment freely in an open debate, and also assuming that every biologist/chemist/virologist came to the same conclusion.
Those two assumptions don’t make sense to me, sorry.
I wanted to have heard from the biologists/chemists/virologists who had it right from the start. I don’t recall hearing all sides of the issue. Somebody out there surely saw this coming.
Those two assumptions don’t make sense to me, sorry.
I wanted to have heard from the biologists/chemists/virologists who had it right from the start. I don’t recall hearing all sides of the issue. Somebody out there surely saw this coming.
It sounds like you’re assuming I’d want unqualified people to comment freely in an open debate
Actually I am not assuming anything. I clearly said I wasn't sure, which leaves the possibilities open.
assuming that every biologist/chemist/virologist came to the same conclusion
Not really, because I don't know every single scientist. I am still talking about the ones in my area. A couple of which I've talked to and those all agreed. And again: the conclusion at the start was not "there is high risk", it was "we do not know how high the risk is". The default mode of scientists is "we do not know" so I hope you see it's pretty easy for a group of scientists to all agree on that. Much, much easier than agreeing on something else because that requires thorough research. But basically you are right on this one: I obvisouly do not have hard evidence all possible scientists agreed they didn't know the actual risks for surface transmission, I just assume they all admit that.
I don’t recall hearing all sides of the issue.
There are many factors which influence that of course. Media in general can be problematic passing through everything.
Somebody out there surely saw this coming
Of course, but that still doesn't mean those people wouldn't agree with "we do not know for sure".
Actually I am not assuming anything. I clearly said I wasn't sure, which leaves the possibilities open.
assuming that every biologist/chemist/virologist came to the same conclusion
Not really, because I don't know every single scientist. I am still talking about the ones in my area. A couple of which I've talked to and those all agreed. And again: the conclusion at the start was not "there is high risk", it was "we do not know how high the risk is". The default mode of scientists is "we do not know" so I hope you see it's pretty easy for a group of scientists to all agree on that. Much, much easier than agreeing on something else because that requires thorough research. But basically you are right on this one: I obvisouly do not have hard evidence all possible scientists agreed they didn't know the actual risks for surface transmission, I just assume they all admit that.
I don’t recall hearing all sides of the issue.
There are many factors which influence that of course. Media in general can be problematic passing through everything.
Somebody out there surely saw this coming
Of course, but that still doesn't mean those people wouldn't agree with "we do not know for sure".
Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available. Within the first few weeks we received updates that it was highly unlikely to be transmitted through surface contact. That information became more and more detailed as time went on.
There is little debate in the matter.
There is little debate in the matter.
> Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available. Within the first few weeks we received updates that it was highly unlikely to be transmitted through surface contact. That information became more and more detailed as time went on.
How do you think the science is done? The first step is to debate these things, to figure out possibilities and design experiments.
How do you think the science is done? The first step is to debate these things, to figure out possibilities and design experiments.
[deleted]
No, scientists don't debate what is true and come up with experiments after, they hypothesize and then test their hypotheses. As results come in, alternative hypotheses are proposed and likewise tested. There might be some debate as to how some data ought to be interpreted, but the data must come first.
And how do you think we come up with hypotheses?
Curiosity.
A hypothesis is just a testable prediction - it only makes sense to have a hypothesis where you don't know the answer ahead of time. Debate is trying to convince someone else of a truth, which requires someone to know the truth (or at least believe they know the truth) beforehand.
A hypothesis is just a testable prediction - it only makes sense to have a hypothesis where you don't know the answer ahead of time. Debate is trying to convince someone else of a truth, which requires someone to know the truth (or at least believe they know the truth) beforehand.
Your definition of debate is overly restrictive. I can assure you that scientists debate unsettled and speculative things all the time, and precisely one of the things being debated is “what should we test for?”
Your definition of debate isn't the one that is relevant to this conversation. We're not referring to speculative thought, we're referring to decision making for public policy. Scientists discuss, evaluate, question, and probe, not debate. True, the people who are scientists might debate from time to time, but that's not a part of the scientific process.
> There is little debate in the matter.
I don’t agree with that as a way to run policy that affects real people living their lives.
I don’t agree with that as a way to run policy that affects real people living their lives.
He's not literally saying there wasn't any debate. It's an expression. It means everyone already agrees.
You prefer laypeople debating to scientific consensus?
Because scientific guidance already involves debate within the scientific community, just with people actually qualified to debate it.
It seems some people are taken aback by their exclusion, but no one is stopping you from becoming a virologist and partaking in the debate.
Because scientific guidance already involves debate within the scientific community, just with people actually qualified to debate it.
It seems some people are taken aback by their exclusion, but no one is stopping you from becoming a virologist and partaking in the debate.
I never said laypeople. How did the debate amongst virologists go down?
The comment you replied to is saying there's little room for debating scientific guidelines, and you're insisting there is.
Who were you thinking would be left to debate those guidelines when the guidelines are based on the debate of experts?
Guidelines change because the experts are still free to debate them, where there is little room for debate is following the results of said debate.
-
And what on earth are you asking me how the guidelines from virologists went for when you're the one arguing for leaving room for debate against them?
One would imagine you'd have some very clear pictures of missteps that can't be excused by the fact we were trying to fight an unknown virus killing people at an alarming rate if you're saying there's room for debating if we should follow their guidelines.
I mean go look at the evolution of discussion on COVID fomite transmission yourself.
In March we were getting studies showing long lived presence of COVID in some form on surfaces for weeks, but there was debate on if those were actually infectious amongst experts.
By April here's a virologist pointing out that the results showing weeks didn't mean it was infectious:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/0...
And for those who will not read the article but will try to respond based on the url... the conclusion was still supporting possible transmission, just for days instead if weeks. And it was still recommending aggressive disinfection:
> This suggests that risk of infection from virus on objects or surfaces in the environment can be minimized by diligent cleaning and disinfection practices.
-
The very nature of the guidelines is including the fact no all experts are going to agree, which is the point of an organization like WHO.
There is little room for debate in following what their guidelines. It's very easy to come up with armchair opinion showing how misguided that is where they were wrong, but their recommendations are based on accounting for the fact we had a global pandemic to deal with.
Who were you thinking would be left to debate those guidelines when the guidelines are based on the debate of experts?
Guidelines change because the experts are still free to debate them, where there is little room for debate is following the results of said debate.
-
And what on earth are you asking me how the guidelines from virologists went for when you're the one arguing for leaving room for debate against them?
One would imagine you'd have some very clear pictures of missteps that can't be excused by the fact we were trying to fight an unknown virus killing people at an alarming rate if you're saying there's room for debating if we should follow their guidelines.
I mean go look at the evolution of discussion on COVID fomite transmission yourself.
In March we were getting studies showing long lived presence of COVID in some form on surfaces for weeks, but there was debate on if those were actually infectious amongst experts.
By April here's a virologist pointing out that the results showing weeks didn't mean it was infectious:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/0...
And for those who will not read the article but will try to respond based on the url... the conclusion was still supporting possible transmission, just for days instead if weeks. And it was still recommending aggressive disinfection:
> This suggests that risk of infection from virus on objects or surfaces in the environment can be minimized by diligent cleaning and disinfection practices.
-
The very nature of the guidelines is including the fact no all experts are going to agree, which is the point of an organization like WHO.
There is little room for debate in following what their guidelines. It's very easy to come up with armchair opinion showing how misguided that is where they were wrong, but their recommendations are based on accounting for the fact we had a global pandemic to deal with.
Well considering every public places seems to be disinfecting every possible surface every 5 minutes, seems like the message wasn't received?
I get the sense that's happening more for show: businesses want people to feel safe coming in; bragging about thorough cleaning procedures is a way of conveying that, whether it works or not
Why doesn't this reach a better equilibrium though? Consider store A who brags about disinfecting everything every half hour, and store B down the street who does the bare minimum to pass government regulations.
Shouldn't store B then be spending less money on "sanitary theatre" and can theoretically provide a marginally better service in ways that matter?
The federal government can spend however many billions of dollars for new TSA staffing and equipment, but that's because they're a monopoly in airline security. Not sure why in a free-market we'd have obviously sub-optimal outcomes like this.
(Sorry if this is naive, feel free to weigh in with harsh realities about how the real world works :) )
Shouldn't store B then be spending less money on "sanitary theatre" and can theoretically provide a marginally better service in ways that matter?
The federal government can spend however many billions of dollars for new TSA staffing and equipment, but that's because they're a monopoly in airline security. Not sure why in a free-market we'd have obviously sub-optimal outcomes like this.
(Sorry if this is naive, feel free to weigh in with harsh realities about how the real world works :) )
you nailed it. It is virtue signaling. A theater to display to everyone that you are on the right side of the debate and that you are taking covid seriously.
I would even bet that most people issuing the cleaning guidance know that it is almost useless, but we live in a world in which it is more important for your actions to make you perceived the way you want rather than being effective.
I would even bet that most people issuing the cleaning guidance know that it is almost useless, but we live in a world in which it is more important for your actions to make you perceived the way you want rather than being effective.
It makes people feel safer and is relatively cheap, so public spaces are incentivized to do it.
>Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available.
And how this new information is supposed to reach everyone without being twisted? I heard so much crap being said by doctors, scientists, professors etc. Not just hyperbole, and assumptions, but downright misinformation. I'm in Poland and since the beginning of the pandemic there were multiple lies coming from both government ministers and all the people representing "science" I mentioned. Some examples of lies:
"Masks don't work to protect normal people",(later)"a piece of cloth is all you need", "children don't transmit the virus(then when a new wave of infections was partially caused by children returning to in person learning - ok we fucked up, children were infecting people all along, but we need parents at work not sitting with their children at home) ", "incidence of infection in the workplace is low (then after few months data came out showing 40% of all infections are in the workplace) etc etc.
Now a year later same" leading scientists" are still being invited by the media to answer questions. All available media lie more or less. In this environment how a "typical" person is supposed to know the truth?
I can find published research articles in reputable journals, and actual data to find out what is true, but I have no idea what advice to give to my friends and family who don't have that capability. When they ask me how do you know what is true. All I can say is "read everything and make up your own mind" which is pretty poor.
And how this new information is supposed to reach everyone without being twisted? I heard so much crap being said by doctors, scientists, professors etc. Not just hyperbole, and assumptions, but downright misinformation. I'm in Poland and since the beginning of the pandemic there were multiple lies coming from both government ministers and all the people representing "science" I mentioned. Some examples of lies:
"Masks don't work to protect normal people",(later)"a piece of cloth is all you need", "children don't transmit the virus(then when a new wave of infections was partially caused by children returning to in person learning - ok we fucked up, children were infecting people all along, but we need parents at work not sitting with their children at home) ", "incidence of infection in the workplace is low (then after few months data came out showing 40% of all infections are in the workplace) etc etc.
Now a year later same" leading scientists" are still being invited by the media to answer questions. All available media lie more or less. In this environment how a "typical" person is supposed to know the truth?
I can find published research articles in reputable journals, and actual data to find out what is true, but I have no idea what advice to give to my friends and family who don't have that capability. When they ask me how do you know what is true. All I can say is "read everything and make up your own mind" which is pretty poor.
One in 10k per contact is still non-neglible imo.
Everyone can do the math. With 100 contacts to contaminated surfaces the chance of infection grows to 0.01. If the chance to become infected per contact are just 1/2000 with 100 contacts the chances of getting infected are now 40%.
It makes perfect sense to maintain surface hygiene since those contacts accumulate statistically.
Everyone can do the math. With 100 contacts to contaminated surfaces the chance of infection grows to 0.01. If the chance to become infected per contact are just 1/2000 with 100 contacts the chances of getting infected are now 40%.
It makes perfect sense to maintain surface hygiene since those contacts accumulate statistically.
Mind you, this 1 in 10k risk is an estimate, and for safety reasons, a maximum estimate.
Actual risk is likely much lower, as you have to touch contaminated surface, then transfer the virus to nose, mouth or eyes. For public areas, properly worn masks help prevent part of the transfer too, by making it mechanically less likely, and giving more time for evaporation to inactivate the virus (e.g. by airflow)
Fomite infection risk would be higher if a contaminated surface is brought to a presumed clean area, with low ventillation, with no additional precautions taken by people.
Actual risk is likely much lower, as you have to touch contaminated surface, then transfer the virus to nose, mouth or eyes. For public areas, properly worn masks help prevent part of the transfer too, by making it mechanically less likely, and giving more time for evaporation to inactivate the virus (e.g. by airflow)
Fomite infection risk would be higher if a contaminated surface is brought to a presumed clean area, with low ventillation, with no additional precautions taken by people.
You're right on your first estimation:
P(getting infected per touch) = 1/10000 = .0001
P(not getting infected per touch) = 1 - P(getting infected per touch) = .9999
P(not getting infected after 100 touches) = P(not getting infected per touch) ^ 100 = .9999 ^ 100 =~ .99
P(getting infected after 100 touches) = 1 - P(not getting infected after 100 touches) =~ .01 = 1%
Or, in other words:
1 - ((1 - .0001) ^ 100) =~ .01 = 1% chance of infection
By the same logic, your second estimation is a bit off:
1/5000 = .0002
1 - ((1 - .0002) ^ 100) =~ .02 = 2% chance of infection
That's a far cry off 40%.
To think about it another way, if the chance to get infected per touch is 1/10, and you touch a surface 20 times, is your chance of infection 200%? No, that doesn't make sense. It's 1 - ((1 - 1/10) ^ 20) =~ 87.8%.
That's the problem with statistics -- "everyone can do the math", but it's pretty easy to mix it up and reach the wrong conclusions and spread misinformation.
P(getting infected per touch) = 1/10000 = .0001
P(not getting infected per touch) = 1 - P(getting infected per touch) = .9999
P(not getting infected after 100 touches) = P(not getting infected per touch) ^ 100 = .9999 ^ 100 =~ .99
P(getting infected after 100 touches) = 1 - P(not getting infected after 100 touches) =~ .01 = 1%
Or, in other words:
1 - ((1 - .0001) ^ 100) =~ .01 = 1% chance of infection
By the same logic, your second estimation is a bit off:
1/5000 = .0002
1 - ((1 - .0002) ^ 100) =~ .02 = 2% chance of infection
That's a far cry off 40%.
To think about it another way, if the chance to get infected per touch is 1/10, and you touch a surface 20 times, is your chance of infection 200%? No, that doesn't make sense. It's 1 - ((1 - 1/10) ^ 20) =~ 87.8%.
That's the problem with statistics -- "everyone can do the math", but it's pretty easy to mix it up and reach the wrong conclusions and spread misinformation.
Yes, my 40% was actually with 1/2000. Thanks for checking the numbers :). Agree it's very easy to fumble numbers.
> the chance to become infected per contact are just 1/5000 with 100 contacts
This sounds like gamblers fallacy to me. The number of trials doesn’t change the probability of individual trials in this case because each trial is statistically independent, I saw no mention of e.g. accumulating viral load via successive surface contacts.
From the article, emphasis mine:
> each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection
This sounds like gamblers fallacy to me. The number of trials doesn’t change the probability of individual trials in this case because each trial is statistically independent, I saw no mention of e.g. accumulating viral load via successive surface contacts.
From the article, emphasis mine:
> each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection
That thought, that "the number of trials doesn’t change the probability of individual trials in this case because each trial is statistically independent" is based on a false assumption that the mathematical statement, observed alone, is all we know about the issue.
And it isn't. We know that the infection happens when enough active viruses appear on the mucosa cells of the host. We know that there are a lot of viruses in every droplet from somebody's nose or mouth. Imagine how much viruses somebody leaves on the surface if he wipes his nose with a hand, for example, and then uses that hand to handle some item.
Finally, we know how much time it takes for half of the viruses to become non functioning (half life) -- something like three days, it is, they remain in the similar numbers for quite a while on the surface. Multiple touches of the same surface on which there is certain number of viruses is nothing like a series of "independent trials."
And it isn't. We know that the infection happens when enough active viruses appear on the mucosa cells of the host. We know that there are a lot of viruses in every droplet from somebody's nose or mouth. Imagine how much viruses somebody leaves on the surface if he wipes his nose with a hand, for example, and then uses that hand to handle some item.
Finally, we know how much time it takes for half of the viruses to become non functioning (half life) -- something like three days, it is, they remain in the similar numbers for quite a while on the surface. Multiple touches of the same surface on which there is certain number of viruses is nothing like a series of "independent trials."
You missed the if at the start of the sentence. They're not saying that the 100 contacts increases the odds, they're worrying about the effects of 100 contacts if the odds are were underestimated.
If you took all the money spent on sanitising things and instead spent it on buying higher quality masks you'd see a much bigger effect. And this works from the individual, private enterprise or public health perspective.
It's very unofficial, but I heard a debate last fall after city officials uprooted a children's playground over concerns of COVID spread. It lead me to an article which mentioned health officials who were advocating for opening children's playgrounds, with the CDC stating that surface transmission is "not thought to be the main way the virus spreads."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safe...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safe...
In the early months it was very well documented that there were no confirmed cases of surface to surface transmission.
Yes, check out michael osterholm's joe rogan interview. He called out hand washing as basically security theater
> Findings of these studies suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via the fomite transmission route is low, and generally less than 1 in 10,000, which means that each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection.
Can we then change the title to "Contact with ... contaminated surface.."
Where does the "1 in 10,000" come from in that paper? It seems like it might be from papers '7,8, and 9' in the references. Otherwise it's a number plucked from the air.
Whilst there's no doubt you could catch from touching a surface, it's a respitory disease that you catch by breathing in water droplets contaminated with the virus.
Wash your hands, fine. Leaving your shopping in the garden or spraying with bleach? Seems a touch hysterical to me. And I say that as someone that was in a high COVID area, grocery shop frequently, and still haven't caught it from touching a tin of beans on a shelf.
Whilst there's no doubt you could catch from touching a surface, it's a respitory disease that you catch by breathing in water droplets contaminated with the virus.
Wash your hands, fine. Leaving your shopping in the garden or spraying with bleach? Seems a touch hysterical to me. And I say that as someone that was in a high COVID area, grocery shop frequently, and still haven't caught it from touching a tin of beans on a shelf.
[deleted]
You can touch many of those surfaces per day thoughso perspective and stats is everything
Sigh...
Please don't delete-edit your posts like that. It leaves the thread incoherent and isn't fair to the reader or to the commenters who replied.
Doing it in a snarky way is particularly not cool.
Doing it in a snarky way is particularly not cool.
The reason why people react negatively to those who have been bringing up this sort of thing is that it always comes with this nonsense at the end:
> They are hiding, scared, waiting for the government to officially announce that it is once again safe to return to the world.
If it were a leveled discussion of facts, without the obvious agenda and judgment attached, people would not react so negatively.
> They are hiding, scared, waiting for the government to officially announce that it is once again safe to return to the world.
If it were a leveled discussion of facts, without the obvious agenda and judgment attached, people would not react so negatively.
Agreed. Just comes of as disengenuous and "wake up sheeple"
> They are hiding, scared, waiting for the government to officially announce that it is once again safe to return to the world.
Would you believe that many of us are not scared, but rather that we decided based on facts about aerosol transmission that nonessential travel/social events put other people's grandparents at unneccesary risk?
Would you believe that many of us are not scared, but rather that we decided based on facts about aerosol transmission that nonessential travel/social events put other people's grandparents at unneccesary risk?
There is a disease going around. It transmits by droplets that you cannot see. People can be infectious before showing symptoms or without symptoms at all. It affects some people at lot more than others. I don't blame people for being scared.
The winning move actually is not to play the social game for a few months. Currently, the best people are the ones you do not meet at all.
The winning move actually is not to play the social game for a few months. Currently, the best people are the ones you do not meet at all.
? Or likely the complete opposite in that most people don't have access to the direct science, nor have the ability to translate it into policy, and we rely on institutions and the medical community to set up the basis for behaviours, that COVID is real, it's literally killed 550 000 people of all ages in just 1 year, that anyone can get it, and that it's rational to follow the advice until indicated otherwise. And finally 'we don't really know' the specific nature of transmission and it's rational (and low cost) to be safer than sorry, and to wipe down surfaces.
[deleted]
So handshakes are safe and there's no need to perform this awkward elbow bump anymore
We've known this for like a year, right? All the spraying and stuff is performative, like the brown M&Ms of COVID sécurité.
Hey, the brown M&M’s actually served an important purpose as a signal!
Right right. That's what I meant. By doing this as well, you're sort of saying "We're doing this pain in the ass thing that has no value. You can bet we're doing all the easy things that do have value as well".
I loathe every time someone brings up the quirky neat trivia of brown M&M’s - it always results in ten comments trying to error-check the lore and one comment about how they loathe the whole exercise.
like, theoretically someone could have read the full Van Halen rider and thought, damn we're not doing all this stuff but lets do the brown M&M's thing because you know how these touchy, irrational artist types are, if they see one brown M&M they probably lose it!
The point was to see if they had read the Van Halen rider. If there were no brown M&M's then they knew the venue had at least read the document.
I think you're missing the point...
[deleted]
the point was that the brown m&ms have an important signalling effect? and I said well there could be a case in which the signal you thought you were receiving from the m&ms being present was wrong?
The point is only to detect whether they read enough of the contract to find that buried, arbitrary but highly visible detail, not to ensure they execute everything within it.
In the versions of the story if they didn't execute that point Van Halen's roadie would go on the warpath and go through everything to determine stuff was done correctly, so I mean the point was not that they read the contract? No one cares if you read the contract, they care that you do what is in the contract - of course doing what is in the contract requires that you read it first, but it is the doing that people care about. If you have not done the M&Ms correctly you have not read the contract that means you could not have done the important things they require.
We're still sanitizing and/or quarantining everything that comes into our house from an unknown source. It's become a easy routine/habit anyways, and I've started to like that everything in our house is clean and I don't have to worry about it (have you seen how dirty groceries are?). Also, it's been the year of absolutely no flu, stomach aches and other various illnesses that afflict us in a seemingly random fashion.
The lack of additional sickness may have more to do with not having your kids rolling around in slimy Petri dishes with other kids, or being around coworkers whose kids are doing the same. In other words, isolation does wonders for avoiding infectious diseases, kids and their parents are a major transmission vehicle that you’ve also likely reduced contact with over the last year.
Just get UV lights, that's a lot of labor.
If you needed to know everything about the pandemic, all you needed to listen was Michael Osterholm's interview in Joe Rogan podcast before the pandemic began. I m sure people would be a lot better prepared about the duration of the pandemic, the mode of transmission, the death rates etc if the epidemiologists had been frank about what to expect from a SARS pandemic. "Do not exchange air" should be an international slogan. Washing hands and groceries is just another security theater
Washing hands is basic hygiene, definitely not theater.
These are typical surfaces found on public transport, shopping malls, food courts. Three days allows for a lot of traffic to pass through and potentially come into contact with the infected surface. Of course, if the infection is coming from someone who is at that location on a daily basis (works there, takes the same bus/train each day) then the 3 days stretches out because surfaces are getting re-infected while the person is infected. Given that in densely populated areas such locations can get hundreds to thousands of people passing through each day, 1 in 10K may still translate to 1 infection every few days for a given "location". Each of those people would likely infect whoever they cohabitate with. So, while surface transmission is very low, it's not nothing, and can translate to real numbers in short order.
You may read the above and say "so what?". I should point out that I'm based in Australia, and the way we've handled the COVID situation and the numbers we've had and are having, means we are generally pretty highly sensitised to avoiding the kind of shitshow happening in most of the rest of the world. The numbers you are seeing in your countries are horrific to most of us.