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

131–140 of 146 posts

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

#131

Post by brundolf »

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.

Oh I definitely won't be doing it any more once I'm fully vaccinated. I just like to be one or two levels of precaution above the common advice because getting long-COVID and potentially ruining my life at 29 is one of my worst nightmares right now.

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

#132

Post by jjk166 »

sokoloff wrote: post #102
baud147258 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People largely weren’t doing this 18 months ago and many started doing it around 12 months ago; what changed their mind?

Common diseases like the flu were always unpleasant, but you especially don't want to get them during a pandemic. I'm sure a lot of us started sanitizing surfaces when it was believed that's how covid spread, but it's been really nice not getting sick for a year now and I for one will keep doing so long after the pandemic is over.

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

#133

Post by jjk166 »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #93
fsloth wrote: post #17

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.

> 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…

You missed the if at the start of the sentence. They're not saying that the 100 contacts increases the odds, they're worrying about the effects of 100 contacts if the odds are were underestimated.

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

#134

Post by aksss »

Jeema101 wrote: post #129
DrBazza wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not saying it isn’t horrific out here, but not all of us live on a desert island in Oceania. :/ Greenland has faired even better than AUS but I doubt it’s because they have better surface disinfecting practices, just less surfaces and people in general compared to AUS. All of this. So many people are holding up AUS and NZ as the way the rest of the world should have handled it. But as you correctly say, they're two…

It has nothing to do with population density. Other continents have fared much better than Europe, North America, and South America [1]. Many of the world's densest cities are on these continents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_M...

Population density absolutely matters for airborne infectious disease spread.

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

#135

Post by quickthrowman »

jjk166 wrote: post #132
sokoloff wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People largely weren’t doing this 18 months ago and many started doing it around 12 months ago; what changed their mind?

Common diseases like the flu were always unpleasant, but you especially don't want to get them during a pandemic. I'm sure a lot of us started sanitizing surfaces when it was believed that's how covid spread, but it's been really nice not getting sick for a year now and I for one will keep doing so long after the pandemic is over.

Please provide evidence that sanitizing surfaces prevented you from getting sick.

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

#136

Post by triceratops »

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.

Put the grocery bags on the floor, squat down to clean them. Two birds, one stone.

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

#137

Post by jjk166 »

quickthrowman wrote: post #135
jjk166 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common diseases like the flu were always unpleasant, but you especially don't want to get them during a pandemic. I'm sure a lot of us started sanitizing surfaces when it was believed that's how covid spread, but it's been really nice not getting sick for a year now and I for one will keep doing so long after the pandemic is over.

Please provide evidence that sanitizing surfaces prevented you from getting sick.

Spend a year licking dirty doorknobs. If you also don't get sick, I'll consider my hypothesis disproven.

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

#138

Post by phs318u »

DrBazza wrote: post #127
phs318u wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, population density of the whole country is irrelevant. Population density of urban centres (e.g. Sydney + Melb > 10M pop.), is comparable if not greater than many cities in the US. We are largely self-sufficient for most food stuffs. I assume most of the US is too (I doubt that closing your borders would lead to empty food shelves). But we are entirely not self-sufficient for just about anything that's manuf…

> but I assure you it didn't fucking feel trivial 5 months into the 2nd lockdown. I wrote that it is trivial to prevent people entering and leaving AUS/NZ, as you also stated in your comment "We shut our borders to people (mostly) not goods." I did NOT write it was trivial "locking down" cities. Europe is under going similar lockdowns, so Australia is far from alone. According to the press, there are 30-40,000 of you…

You underestimate the amount of interstate traffic here, especially on the east coast. The real reason we squelched transmission was the highly unpopular but rigorously enforced state border closures. That is a political and economic choice not a reflection of geography. And it was done so, by state governments of both political persuasions, despite the barrage of constant criticism from the Murdoch press.

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

#139

Post by phs318u »

aksss wrote: post #134
Jeema101 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with population density. Other continents have fared much better than Europe, North America, and South America [1]. Many of the world's densest cities are on these continents. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:COVID-19_Outbreak_World_M...

Population density absolutely matters for airborne infectious disease spread.

The point being made is that it’s local density that matters not overall density.

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

#140

Post by valarauko »

cortic wrote: post #110
pbourke wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also sanitize your door knob, handle, pantry door handle, fridge/freezer handle, faucet controls, etc? Merely washing your hands when you’re done stowing items seems to be a better strategy. Also it doesn’t stand to reason that you treat each item in your grocery delivery as having disjoint probability of harboring infectious virus. That’s clearly not true in the real world.

I sanitize the items in the garage, as i fill a sanitized crate, then my hands, then lift them into the house. Its quick and easy, it also allows me to reduce contact with the driver. To be honest i massively underestimated how often i touch some of these items in the first few days, coffee jars alone get touched 40+ times, jam and butter 12+, bread 18+, diluting squash 14+. even if i wash my hands after stowing away…

I assume these numbers are for the lifetime of the product. Perhaps a more reasonable assumption would be to only consider touches within the first 3 days, since the surface contamination is essentially non-viable past that point.
Post reply on HN