Contaminated surface has under 1 in 10k chance of causing an infection • Hacker News Board

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

#11

Post by hanselot » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:13 AM UTC

dominostars wrote: post #4

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.

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.

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

#12

Post by adrianN » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:15 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #9

kevml wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well considering every public places seems to be disinfecting every possible surface every 5 minutes, seems like the message wasn't received?

It makes people feel safer and is relatively cheap, so public spaces are incentivized to do it.

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

#13

Post by ohgodplsno » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:17 AM UTC

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.

Keep washing your hands you filthy animals.

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

#14

Post by BoorishBears » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:17 AM UTC

peytn wrote: post #10

kevml wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There is little debate in the matter. I don’t agree with that as a way to run policy that affects real people living their lives.

You prefer laypeople debating to scientific consensus?

Because scientific guidance already involves debate within the scientific community, just with people actually qualified to debate it.

It seems some people are taken aback by their exclusion, but no one is stopping you from becoming a virologist and partaking in the debate.

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

#15

Post by brundolf » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:17 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #9

kevml wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#16

Post by afterburner » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:17 AM UTC

peytn wrote: post #10

kevml wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There is little debate in the matter. I don’t agree with that as a way to run policy that affects real people living their lives.

He's not literally saying there wasn't any debate. It's an expression. It means everyone already agrees.

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

#17

Post by fsloth » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:18 AM UTC

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.

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

#18

Post by brundolf » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:18 AM UTC

dominostars wrote: post #4

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.

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

#19

Post by stinos » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:19 AM UTC

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.”

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 have their say in things like this which is, again in my opinion, a bad idea. Only biologists/chemists/virologists/... have the fundamental knowledge it takes to reason about this without making mistakes. And between them there definitely was a debate, and they came to the same conclusion.

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

#20

Post by asplake » Tue, Apr 06, 2021, 6:20 AM UTC

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.