Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

cdc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 146 posts

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#31

Post by barsonme »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #25
brudgers wrote: post #5

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.)

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#32

Post by renewiltord »

thedevelopnik wrote: post #6
renewiltord wrote: post #2

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".

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#34

Post by peytn »

stinos wrote: post #28
peytn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible?

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 t…

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.

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#35

Post by AstralStorm »

fsloth wrote: post #17
peytn wrote: post #3

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.”

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.

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.

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#36

Post by garmaine »

kevml wrote: post #8
peytn wrote: post #3

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.”

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.

> 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.

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#37

Post by alcover »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #13

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. Kee…

> 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.

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#38

Post by rainyMammoth »

brundolf wrote: post #15
refurb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection

#40

Post by [deleted] »

pengaru wrote: post #30
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I think you're missing the point...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN