5 ms·

Years ago the University of Oregon did research on bacteria and hand washing. Their finding? It's not soap, it's scrubbing in water. Scrubbing hands under wat

Years ago the University of Oregon did research on bacteria and hand washing. Their finding? It's not soap, it's scrubbing in water. Scrubbing hands under water did all the work. Neither anti-bacterial agents or soap had almost any effects at all. I imagine it's not unlike why a stream is safe to drink but a non-moving puddle is not.

jeffdavis 7y ago
This article is specifically about viruses, not bacteria. It claims specifically that water alone is not effective against viruses like COVID-19, because they stick to the skin too strongly. It also claims that soap and water together are very effective by ripping the virus apart chemically. Additionally, streams are not generally safe to drink from, despite how pristine they may look[1]. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/index.html
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  How is no one is worried about viruses in moving water vs a puddle? (I've learned a lot about survival over decades, you can't tell me this is new information) Just like the panic around COVID-19. China, who has more infections and more deaths than anywhere else combined, is already calming down. Yet the rest of the world is just starting in full panic mode. Some people (medical leaders and scientists, not nut cases) are 100% convinced we should panic. This is not rational. We have _scientific_ proof that COVID-19 is not a big deal. Yet here we are.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    > We have _scientific_ proof that COVID-19 is not a big deal. Are you one of those people who think Y2K was hyped up too? China is calming down because of a tremendous amount of hard work, and some draconian restrictions on personal freedoms. The virus didn't just die down by itself. We shouldn't panic. But we should also not be calling it nothing. On a meta-level, this is why societies don't value prevention. And why firefighters who pull people out of wrecked cars are considered heroes, but Nils Bohlin, the inventor of the 3-point seatbelt, usually is not (I think they're both heroes, in different ways). Because we have people who deny there may problem in the future, and then after it's prevented through the application of a ton of someone else's effort and ingenuity say "So it didn't turn out all that bad after all. See? I told you."
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      > ...one of those people... Ad hominem Proof question: How many rats do you need to test to determine with a high rate of accuracy a disease's CFR?
      - triceratops 7y ago
        It was a simple question. And you didn't answer the rest of my post. Are you asserting that China would've had the same outcome if they had done nothing?
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        We already know how bad it can get. It's be tested and proven under lab-like conditions. If you want to panic and spread irrational noise, go ahead. There's no point arguing with people that don't want to discuss the science side of things.
        triceratops 7y ago
        > If you want to panic Can you please explain where I said that? I'm pretty sure I said "We shouldn't panic" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22559590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22559590). I'll say it again. We shouldn't panic. It is counterproductive. But so is passiveness, inaction, and complacency (such as saying "it's not a big deal" as you did). Facing up to a problem, and dealing with it calmly and resolutely isn't panicking. > There's no point arguing with people that don't want to discuss the science side of things I'm not certain what "science" you're talking about here. What "lab-like" conditions? Are you saying containment efforts are unnecessary or unhelpful? I seriously have no idea.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Argue with doctors, data and non-panic induced social media. Bring ur lazy sideways anti-science arguing elsewhere. One example of many, go argue with them. https://imgur.com/gallery/mAOTOI8 https://imgur.com/gallery/mAOTOI8

jeffdavis 7y ago

This article is specifically about viruses, not bacteria. It claims specifically that water alone is not effective against viruses like COVID-19, because they stick to the skin too strongly. It also claims that soap and water together are very effective by ripping the virus apart chemically. Additionally, streams are not generally safe to drink from, despite how pristine they may look[1]. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/index.html

RobertRoberts 7y ago
How is no one is worried about viruses in moving water vs a puddle? (I've learned a lot about survival over decades, you can't tell me this is new information) Just like the panic around COVID-19. China, who has more infections and more deaths than anywhere else combined, is already calming down. Yet the rest of the world is just starting in full panic mode. Some people (medical leaders and scientists, not nut cases) are 100% convinced we should panic. This is not rational. We have _scientific_ proof that COVID-19 is not a big deal. Yet here we are.
- triceratops 7y ago
  > We have _scientific_ proof that COVID-19 is not a big deal. Are you one of those people who think Y2K was hyped up too? China is calming down because of a tremendous amount of hard work, and some draconian restrictions on personal freedoms. The virus didn't just die down by itself. We shouldn't panic. But we should also not be calling it nothing. On a meta-level, this is why societies don't value prevention. And why firefighters who pull people out of wrecked cars are considered heroes, but Nils Bohlin, the inventor of the 3-point seatbelt, usually is not (I think they're both heroes, in different ways). Because we have people who deny there may problem in the future, and then after it's prevented through the application of a ton of someone else's effort and ingenuity say "So it didn't turn out all that bad after all. See? I told you."
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    > ...one of those people... Ad hominem Proof question: How many rats do you need to test to determine with a high rate of accuracy a disease's CFR?
    - triceratops 7y ago
      It was a simple question. And you didn't answer the rest of my post. Are you asserting that China would've had the same outcome if they had done nothing?
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        We already know how bad it can get. It's be tested and proven under lab-like conditions. If you want to panic and spread irrational noise, go ahead. There's no point arguing with people that don't want to discuss the science side of things.
        triceratops 7y ago
        > If you want to panic Can you please explain where I said that? I'm pretty sure I said "We shouldn't panic" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22559590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22559590). I'll say it again. We shouldn't panic. It is counterproductive. But so is passiveness, inaction, and complacency (such as saying "it's not a big deal" as you did). Facing up to a problem, and dealing with it calmly and resolutely isn't panicking. > There's no point arguing with people that don't want to discuss the science side of things I'm not certain what "science" you're talking about here. What "lab-like" conditions? Are you saying containment efforts are unnecessary or unhelpful? I seriously have no idea.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        Argue with doctors, data and non-panic induced social media. Bring ur lazy sideways anti-science arguing elsewhere. One example of many, go argue with them. https://imgur.com/gallery/mAOTOI8 https://imgur.com/gallery/mAOTOI8