4 ms·

"There is no evidence that" is a phrase that drives me nuts. What they mean is that there is not a randomized controlled double blind study that shows somethin

"There is no evidence that" is a phrase that drives me nuts. What they mean is that there is not a randomized controlled double blind study that shows something. My favorite explanation of the problem with this is: "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials" [1] We know that viruses can live on wood and paper. We know that many people touch currency, and transfer viruses to and from currency. We do not need a randomized controlled trial to know that this might present a risk, especially with one of the most virulent and deadly pathogens ever encountered. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459 https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

ShorsHammer 7y ago
> "There is no evidence that" is a phrase that drives me nuts. This is a phrase said in the article by Marilyn Roberts, a microbiologist at the University of Washington School of Public Health. Also by the US Centers for Disease Control: “It may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.” May I ask your virology qualifications? This is followed up by: > with one of the most virulent and deadly pathogens ever encountered Even to a layman this raises some eyebrows. Considering the grievances about semantics here could you please back up that assertive statement with some evidence?
- olalonde 7y ago
  Your quote from the CDC supports what parent said... It can be transmitted through cash. China also banned cash transactions in response to the virus (and they seem at least as competent as the CDC so far).
  - ramblerman 7y ago
    > China also banned cash transactions in response to the virus Let's see if the right returns.
    - westmeal 7y ago
      Yup sounds like the good old prc found an opportunity and used it.
- downerending 7y ago
  You can literally put your money where your mouth (and nose) is. Rub each bill you receive on your face for a month and report back. For science!
  - ShorsHammer 7y ago
    I'd prefer to put actual money where my mouth is, would you care to bet a fair sum on my comment above? I definitely would. There are peer-to-peer betting option available to us. I would bet everything I own that this virus doesn't kill half of the flu/pneumonia deaths of 2017 by WHO numbers. That's for even money. Please let me know, we can work something out.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dhab 7y ago
By that argument, we would have to boycott everything anyone with a disease ever touches - hard surfaces (virus is known to survive for up to a week) such as train rails would be tricky one - since we would have to send it back to the manufacturers with every suspicious contact? I think cash has been known as dirty for a while now. There are ways to manage infection, without boycotting i think - with things such as washing hands frequently being sufficient in many cases. "No evidence of that" is a valid argument.
- boublepop 7y ago
  In train stations and airports where I’m at, they are sanitizing handrails regularly, because even though there is “No evidence” that unsanitized handrails pose a risk of transmitting the disease, we do have hard evidence that it stays for long periods on metal, and the rest is a no-brain’er. “No evidence” is not a valid argument against this practice.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    There is a bit of Shooting the Elephant as well. A large percentage of the public will be unconvinced about the 'no evidence' and expect the authorities to do something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant

ShorsHammer 7y ago

> "There is no evidence that" is a phrase that drives me nuts. This is a phrase said in the article by Marilyn Roberts, a microbiologist at the University of Washington School of Public Health. Also by the US Centers for Disease Control: “It may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.” May I ask your virology qualifications? This is followed up by: > with one of the most virulent and deadly pathogens ever encountered Even to a layman this raises some eyebrows. Considering the grievances about semantics here could you please back up that assertive statement with some evidence?

olalonde 7y ago
Your quote from the CDC supports what parent said... It can be transmitted through cash. China also banned cash transactions in response to the virus (and they seem at least as competent as the CDC so far).
- ramblerman 7y ago
  > China also banned cash transactions in response to the virus Let's see if the right returns.
  - westmeal 7y ago
    Yup sounds like the good old prc found an opportunity and used it.
downerending 7y ago
You can literally put your money where your mouth (and nose) is. Rub each bill you receive on your face for a month and report back. For science!
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  I'd prefer to put actual money where my mouth is, would you care to bet a fair sum on my comment above? I definitely would. There are peer-to-peer betting option available to us. I would bet everything I own that this virus doesn't kill half of the flu/pneumonia deaths of 2017 by WHO numbers. That's for even money. Please let me know, we can work something out.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dhab 7y ago

By that argument, we would have to boycott everything anyone with a disease ever touches - hard surfaces (virus is known to survive for up to a week) such as train rails would be tricky one - since we would have to send it back to the manufacturers with every suspicious contact? I think cash has been known as dirty for a while now. There are ways to manage infection, without boycotting i think - with things such as washing hands frequently being sufficient in many cases. "No evidence of that" is a valid argument.

boublepop 7y ago
In train stations and airports where I’m at, they are sanitizing handrails regularly, because even though there is “No evidence” that unsanitized handrails pose a risk of transmitting the disease, we do have hard evidence that it stays for long periods on metal, and the rest is a no-brain’er. “No evidence” is not a valid argument against this practice.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  There is a bit of Shooting the Elephant as well. A large percentage of the public will be unconvinced about the 'no evidence' and expect the authorities to do something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_an_Elephant