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

91–100 of 146 posts

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

#91

Post by turing_complete »

approxim8ion wrote: post #67
brundolf wrote: post #18

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.

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)?

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

#92

Post by spoonjim »

approxim8ion wrote: post #67
brundolf wrote: post #18

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.

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.

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

#93

Post by sixstringtheory »

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.

> 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

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

#94

Post by hyko »

spoonjim wrote: post #92
approxim8ion wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#95

Post by hyko »

cblconfederate wrote: post #76

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…

Washing hands is basic hygiene, definitely not theater.

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

#96

Post by pengaru »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #42
pengaru wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point...

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.

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

#97

Post by baud147258 »

turing_complete wrote: post #91
approxim8ion wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)?

I think the idea is that you're cleaning not just Covid-19, but also any other kind of contaminant

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

#98

Post by cortic »

abtinf wrote: post #55
hashhar wrote: post #26

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.”

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.

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

#99

Post by hanselot »

mrkeen wrote: post #54
hanselot wrote: post #11

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?

By looking at when the arrests were made.

Pretty simple, the only thing that was going to derail that narrative happens coincidentally at exactly the right time for people to forget about it?

You are telling me that at this point you are still buying the narrative they shove down your throat on every single platform?

Post reply on HN