81–90 of 146 posts
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.”
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 s…
I like the term 'public health theatre'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talk a world of bull**, every single place in my country has hand sanitizer and cleans every surface religiously. Watch them astroturf their megaplague to hide the fact that they were distracting the world from Maxwell and Epstein.
How do you link hand sanitizer to Maxwell and Epstein?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 =…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Data from surface survival studies indicate that a 99% reduction in infectious SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses can be expected under typical indoor environmental conditions within 3 days (72 hours) on common non-porous surfaces like stainless steel, plastic, and glass." These are typical surfaces found on public transport, shopping malls, food courts. Three days allows for a lot of traffic to pass through and pot…
I remember Zeynep Tufekci ranting about a school where they had strict procedure for doing a weekly deep cleaning, but no guidelines on ventilation.
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…
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.