61–70 of 146 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
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 h…
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)
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 comin…
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
“SARS-CoV-2 and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments”
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Cleaning is now virtue signaling, HN is on a roll tonight