4 ms·

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

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 :) )

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 :) )