6 ms·

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 every

by peytn 6y ago

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.”

kevml 6y ago
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.
- refurb 6y ago
  Well considering every public places seems to be disinfecting every possible surface every 5 minutes, seems like the message wasn't received?
  - adrianN 6y ago
    It makes people feel safer and is relatively cheap, so public spaces are incentivized to do it.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    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
    - rainyMammoth 6y ago
      you nailed it. It is virtue signaling. A theater to display to everyone that you are on the right side of the debate and that you are taking covid seriously. I would even bet that most people issuing the cleaning guidance know that it is almost useless, but we live in a world in which it is more important for your actions to make you perceived the way you want rather than being effective.
      - staticassertion 6y ago
        Cleaning is now virtue signaling, HN is on a roll tonight
        Dma54rhs 6y ago
        Excessive disinfection of surfaces to fight against covid despite the evidence - what else it is then? Well maybe marketing then as well.
        flukus 6y ago
        I think they're right for the wrong reasons. It wasn't that it was done to be "on the right side", it was done because it was cheap, visible and allowed everything to continue as it was with as long as we all "just wash our hands". Instead of being a method to control the spread it became "the" method and other far more effective measures (masks, WFH) were ignored. Months into the pandemic they were deep cleaning public transport in my city several times a day but not mandating masks. The cleaning probably wasn't a waste, but it was by far the less effective option. A year on the opposite is true because it took so long for science/guidance to update and for that to filter through to public policy.
    - snakeboy 6y ago
      Why doesn't this reach a better equilibrium though? Consider store A who brags about disinfecting everything every half hour, and store B down the street who does the bare minimum to pass government regulations. Shouldn't store B then be spending less money on "sanitary theatre" and can theoretically provide a marginally better service in ways that matter? The federal government can spend however many billions of dollars for new TSA staffing and equipment, but that's because they're a monopoly in airline security. Not sure why in a free-market we'd have obviously sub-optimal outcomes like this. (Sorry if this is naive, feel free to weigh in with harsh realities about how the real world works :) )
- peytn 6y ago
  > 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.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    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.
    - peytn 6y ago
      I never said laypeople. How did the debate amongst virologists go down?
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        The comment you replied to is saying there's little room for debating scientific guidelines, and you're insisting there is. Who were you thinking would be left to debate those guidelines when the guidelines are based on the debate of experts? Guidelines change because the experts are still free to debate them, where there is little room for debate is following the results of said debate. - And what on earth are you asking me how the guidelines from virologists went for when you're the one arguing for leaving room for debate against them? One would imagine you'd have some very clear pictures of missteps that can't be excused by the fact we were trying to fight an unknown virus killing people at an alarming rate if you're saying there's room for debating if we should follow their guidelines. I mean go look at the evolution of discussion on COVID fomite transmission yourself. In March we were getting studies showing long lived presence of COVID in some form on surfaces for weeks, but there was debate on if those were actually infectious amongst experts. By April here's a virologist pointing out that the results showing weeks didn't mean it was infectious: https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/07/a-virologist-explains-why-hyped-studies-tell-us-very-little-about-the-likelihood-of-covid-19-coronavirus-transmission/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/0... And for those who will not read the article but will try to respond based on the url... the conclusion was still supporting possible transmission, just for days instead if weeks. And it was still recommending aggressive disinfection: > This suggests that risk of infection from virus on objects or surfaces in the environment can be minimized by diligent cleaning and disinfection practices. - The very nature of the guidelines is including the fact no all experts are going to agree, which is the point of an organization like WHO. There is little room for debate in following what their guidelines. It's very easy to come up with armchair opinion showing how misguided that is where they were wrong, but their recommendations are based on accounting for the fact we had a global pandemic to deal with.
- garmaine 6y ago
  > 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. How do you think the science is done? The first step is to debate these things, to figure out possibilities and design experiments.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjk166 6y ago
    No, scientists don't debate what is true and come up with experiments after, they hypothesize and then test their hypotheses. As results come in, alternative hypotheses are proposed and likewise tested. There might be some debate as to how some data ought to be interpreted, but the data must come first.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      And how do you think we come up with hypotheses?
      - jjk166 6y ago
        Curiosity. A hypothesis is just a testable prediction - it only makes sense to have a hypothesis where you don't know the answer ahead of time. Debate is trying to convince someone else of a truth, which requires someone to know the truth (or at least believe they know the truth) beforehand.
        garmaine 6y ago
        Your definition of debate is overly restrictive. I can assure you that scientists debate unsettled and speculative things all the time, and precisely one of the things being debated is “what should we test for?”
- Roark66 6y ago
  >Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available. And how this new information is supposed to reach everyone without being twisted? I heard so much crap being said by doctors, scientists, professors etc. Not just hyperbole, and assumptions, but downright misinformation. I'm in Poland and since the beginning of the pandemic there were multiple lies coming from both government ministers and all the people representing "science" I mentioned. Some examples of lies: "Masks don't work to protect normal people",(later)"a piece of cloth is all you need", "children don't transmit the virus(then when a new wave of infections was partially caused by children returning to in person learning - ok we fucked up, children were infecting people all along, but we need parents at work not sitting with their children at home) ", "incidence of infection in the workplace is low (then after few months data came out showing 40% of all infections are in the workplace) etc etc. Now a year later same" leading scientists" are still being invited by the media to answer questions. All available media lie more or less. In this environment how a "typical" person is supposed to know the truth? I can find published research articles in reputable journals, and actual data to find out what is true, but I have no idea what advice to give to my friends and family who don't have that capability. When they ask me how do you know what is true. All I can say is "read everything and make up your own mind" which is pretty poor.
fsloth 6y ago
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.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Mind you, this 1 in 10k risk is an estimate, and for safety reasons, a maximum estimate. Actual risk is likely much lower, as you have to touch contaminated surface, then transfer the virus to nose, mouth or eyes. For public areas, properly worn masks help prevent part of the transfer too, by making it mechanically less likely, and giving more time for evaporation to inactivate the virus (e.g. by airflow) Fomite infection risk would be higher if a contaminated surface is brought to a presumed clean area, with low ventillation, with no additional precautions taken by people.
- mantap 6y ago
  If you took all the money spent on sanitising things and instead spent it on buying higher quality masks you'd see a much bigger effect. And this works from the individual, private enterprise or public health perspective.
- twooster 6y ago
  You're right on your first estimation: P(getting infected per touch) = 1/10000 = .0001 P(not getting infected per touch) = 1 - P(getting infected per touch) = .9999 P(not getting infected after 100 touches) = P(not getting infected per touch) ^ 100 = .9999 ^ 100 =~ .99 P(getting infected after 100 touches) = 1 - P(not getting infected after 100 touches) =~ .01 = 1% Or, in other words: 1 - ((1 - .0001) ^ 100) =~ .01 = 1% chance of infection By the same logic, your second estimation is a bit off: 1/5000 = .0002 1 - ((1 - .0002) ^ 100) =~ .02 = 2% chance of infection That's a far cry off 40%. To think about it another way, if the chance to get infected per touch is 1/10, and you touch a surface 20 times, is your chance of infection 200%? No, that doesn't make sense. It's 1 - ((1 - 1/10) ^ 20) =~ 87.8%. That's the problem with statistics -- "everyone can do the math", but it's pretty easy to mix it up and reach the wrong conclusions and spread misinformation.
stinos 6y ago
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.
- peytn 6y ago
  I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible?
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Easy. You end up with accumulating evidence showing that it is difficult to pull off surfaces in normal cases, and from contact tracing with the vast majority of spread explained by droplets. As evidence accumulates, people get less and less worried about fomites. And I'm sure that not all came to the same conclusion. You can probably find some that think 5G is a major contributor. But a broad consensus forms, where people start to think of surface sterilization as somewhere between "not important at all" or "only mildly important" as a measure to prevent COVID spread. But the precautionary principle means, until the evidence is in--- maybe using protective measures that are effective against other viruses is a sane thing to do until we know more.
  - stinos 6y ago
    I never said laypeople No, but you also didn't specify the people taking part in the debate. So I just tried to interpret it and suggested 2 possibilities. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible? Because it makes most sense. Note that the conclusion was not "the virus spreads by surface all the time". It was: "we don't know for sure (which was completely correct at the time), so better safe than sorry".
pugets 6y ago
It's very unofficial, but I heard a debate last fall after city officials uprooted a children's playground over concerns of COVID spread. It lead me to an article which mentioned health officials who were advocating for opening children's playgrounds, with the CDC stating that surface transmission is "not thought to be the main way the virus spreads." https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safety-tips-coronavirus/2020/10/07/d237b3a4-01b4-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safe...
nostrebored 6y ago
In the early months it was very well documented that there were no confirmed cases of surface to surface transmission.
cblconfederate 6y ago
Yes, check out michael osterholm's joe rogan interview. He called out hand washing as basically security theater

by peytn 6y ago

kevml 6y ago

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.

refurb 6y ago
Well considering every public places seems to be disinfecting every possible surface every 5 minutes, seems like the message wasn't received?
- adrianN 6y ago
  It makes people feel safer and is relatively cheap, so public spaces are incentivized to do it.
- brundolf 6y ago
  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
  - rainyMammoth 6y ago
    you nailed it. It is virtue signaling. A theater to display to everyone that you are on the right side of the debate and that you are taking covid seriously. I would even bet that most people issuing the cleaning guidance know that it is almost useless, but we live in a world in which it is more important for your actions to make you perceived the way you want rather than being effective.
    - staticassertion 6y ago
      Cleaning is now virtue signaling, HN is on a roll tonight
      - Dma54rhs 6y ago
        Excessive disinfection of surfaces to fight against covid despite the evidence - what else it is then? Well maybe marketing then as well.
      - flukus 6y ago
        I think they're right for the wrong reasons. It wasn't that it was done to be "on the right side", it was done because it was cheap, visible and allowed everything to continue as it was with as long as we all "just wash our hands". Instead of being a method to control the spread it became "the" method and other far more effective measures (masks, WFH) were ignored. Months into the pandemic they were deep cleaning public transport in my city several times a day but not mandating masks. The cleaning probably wasn't a waste, but it was by far the less effective option. A year on the opposite is true because it took so long for science/guidance to update and for that to filter through to public policy.
  - snakeboy 6y ago
    Why doesn't this reach a better equilibrium though? Consider store A who brags about disinfecting everything every half hour, and store B down the street who does the bare minimum to pass government regulations. Shouldn't store B then be spending less money on "sanitary theatre" and can theoretically provide a marginally better service in ways that matter? The federal government can spend however many billions of dollars for new TSA staffing and equipment, but that's because they're a monopoly in airline security. Not sure why in a free-market we'd have obviously sub-optimal outcomes like this. (Sorry if this is naive, feel free to weigh in with harsh realities about how the real world works :) )
peytn 6y ago
> 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.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  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.
  - peytn 6y ago
    I never said laypeople. How did the debate amongst virologists go down?
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      The comment you replied to is saying there's little room for debating scientific guidelines, and you're insisting there is. Who were you thinking would be left to debate those guidelines when the guidelines are based on the debate of experts? Guidelines change because the experts are still free to debate them, where there is little room for debate is following the results of said debate. - And what on earth are you asking me how the guidelines from virologists went for when you're the one arguing for leaving room for debate against them? One would imagine you'd have some very clear pictures of missteps that can't be excused by the fact we were trying to fight an unknown virus killing people at an alarming rate if you're saying there's room for debating if we should follow their guidelines. I mean go look at the evolution of discussion on COVID fomite transmission yourself. In March we were getting studies showing long lived presence of COVID in some form on surfaces for weeks, but there was debate on if those were actually infectious amongst experts. By April here's a virologist pointing out that the results showing weeks didn't mean it was infectious: https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/07/a-virologist-explains-why-hyped-studies-tell-us-very-little-about-the-likelihood-of-covid-19-coronavirus-transmission/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronavirusfrontlines/2020/04/0... And for those who will not read the article but will try to respond based on the url... the conclusion was still supporting possible transmission, just for days instead if weeks. And it was still recommending aggressive disinfection: > This suggests that risk of infection from virus on objects or surfaces in the environment can be minimized by diligent cleaning and disinfection practices. - The very nature of the guidelines is including the fact no all experts are going to agree, which is the point of an organization like WHO. There is little room for debate in following what their guidelines. It's very easy to come up with armchair opinion showing how misguided that is where they were wrong, but their recommendations are based on accounting for the fact we had a global pandemic to deal with.
garmaine 6y ago
> 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. How do you think the science is done? The first step is to debate these things, to figure out possibilities and design experiments.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jjk166 6y ago
  No, scientists don't debate what is true and come up with experiments after, they hypothesize and then test their hypotheses. As results come in, alternative hypotheses are proposed and likewise tested. There might be some debate as to how some data ought to be interpreted, but the data must come first.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    And how do you think we come up with hypotheses?
    - jjk166 6y ago
      Curiosity. A hypothesis is just a testable prediction - it only makes sense to have a hypothesis where you don't know the answer ahead of time. Debate is trying to convince someone else of a truth, which requires someone to know the truth (or at least believe they know the truth) beforehand.
      - garmaine 6y ago
        Your definition of debate is overly restrictive. I can assure you that scientists debate unsettled and speculative things all the time, and precisely one of the things being debated is “what should we test for?”
Roark66 6y ago
>Debate? I’d rather rely on scientific guidance and updates as more information becomes available. And how this new information is supposed to reach everyone without being twisted? I heard so much crap being said by doctors, scientists, professors etc. Not just hyperbole, and assumptions, but downright misinformation. I'm in Poland and since the beginning of the pandemic there were multiple lies coming from both government ministers and all the people representing "science" I mentioned. Some examples of lies: "Masks don't work to protect normal people",(later)"a piece of cloth is all you need", "children don't transmit the virus(then when a new wave of infections was partially caused by children returning to in person learning - ok we fucked up, children were infecting people all along, but we need parents at work not sitting with their children at home) ", "incidence of infection in the workplace is low (then after few months data came out showing 40% of all infections are in the workplace) etc etc. Now a year later same" leading scientists" are still being invited by the media to answer questions. All available media lie more or less. In this environment how a "typical" person is supposed to know the truth? I can find published research articles in reputable journals, and actual data to find out what is true, but I have no idea what advice to give to my friends and family who don't have that capability. When they ask me how do you know what is true. All I can say is "read everything and make up your own mind" which is pretty poor.

fsloth 6y ago

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.

AstralStorm 6y ago
Mind you, this 1 in 10k risk is an estimate, and for safety reasons, a maximum estimate. Actual risk is likely much lower, as you have to touch contaminated surface, then transfer the virus to nose, mouth or eyes. For public areas, properly worn masks help prevent part of the transfer too, by making it mechanically less likely, and giving more time for evaporation to inactivate the virus (e.g. by airflow) Fomite infection risk would be higher if a contaminated surface is brought to a presumed clean area, with low ventillation, with no additional precautions taken by people.
mantap 6y ago
If you took all the money spent on sanitising things and instead spent it on buying higher quality masks you'd see a much bigger effect. And this works from the individual, private enterprise or public health perspective.
twooster 6y ago
You're right on your first estimation: P(getting infected per touch) = 1/10000 = .0001 P(not getting infected per touch) = 1 - P(getting infected per touch) = .9999 P(not getting infected after 100 touches) = P(not getting infected per touch) ^ 100 = .9999 ^ 100 =~ .99 P(getting infected after 100 touches) = 1 - P(not getting infected after 100 touches) =~ .01 = 1% Or, in other words: 1 - ((1 - .0001) ^ 100) =~ .01 = 1% chance of infection By the same logic, your second estimation is a bit off: 1/5000 = .0002 1 - ((1 - .0002) ^ 100) =~ .02 = 2% chance of infection That's a far cry off 40%. To think about it another way, if the chance to get infected per touch is 1/10, and you touch a surface 20 times, is your chance of infection 200%? No, that doesn't make sense. It's 1 - ((1 - 1/10) ^ 20) =~ 87.8%. That's the problem with statistics -- "everyone can do the math", but it's pretty easy to mix it up and reach the wrong conclusions and spread misinformation.

stinos 6y ago

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.

peytn 6y ago
I never said laypeople. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible?
- mlyle 6y ago
  Easy. You end up with accumulating evidence showing that it is difficult to pull off surfaces in normal cases, and from contact tracing with the vast majority of spread explained by droplets. As evidence accumulates, people get less and less worried about fomites. And I'm sure that not all came to the same conclusion. You can probably find some that think 5G is a major contributor. But a broad consensus forms, where people start to think of surface sterilization as somewhere between "not important at all" or "only mildly important" as a measure to prevent COVID spread. But the precautionary principle means, until the evidence is in--- maybe using protective measures that are effective against other viruses is a sane thing to do until we know more.
- stinos 6y ago
  I never said laypeople No, but you also didn't specify the people taking part in the debate. So I just tried to interpret it and suggested 2 possibilities. All biologists/chemists/virologists came to the same conclusion? How is that possible? Because it makes most sense. Note that the conclusion was not "the virus spreads by surface all the time". It was: "we don't know for sure (which was completely correct at the time), so better safe than sorry".

pugets 6y ago

It's very unofficial, but I heard a debate last fall after city officials uprooted a children's playground over concerns of COVID spread. It lead me to an article which mentioned health officials who were advocating for opening children's playgrounds, with the CDC stating that surface transmission is "not thought to be the main way the virus spreads." https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safety-tips-coronavirus/2020/10/07/d237b3a4-01b4-11eb-b7ed-141dd88560ea_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/playground-safe...

nostrebored 6y ago

In the early months it was very well documented that there were no confirmed cases of surface to surface transmission.

cblconfederate 6y ago

Yes, check out michael osterholm's joe rogan interview. He called out hand washing as basically security theater