Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
21–30 of 146 posts
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#22Did 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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safe...
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#23Did 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.”
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#24Did 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 h…
How is that possible?
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#25the 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.
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#26 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.Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 h…
I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible?
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.
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 h…
I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible?
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".
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#29These 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.
Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, the brown M&M’s actually served an important purpose as a signal!
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!