Major Covid Myth Destroyed - Is Freedom Winning?

[Brian4Liberty]

Major Covid Myth Destroyed - Is Freedom Winning?

The CDC has quietly added a link on its website to a new study showing that surface transmission of the virus is extremely rare. Even if a person touches a "contaminated" surface the chance of getting infected is only one in ten thousand! So much for the billions of dollars shelled out over the past year on disinfectants and sanitizers. Somebody got rich! Also today; More Fauci word salad and United Airlines dangerous new "wokeism."

Article discussed today: https://www.aier.org/article/another...ies-the-death/

[merkelstan]

"each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection."

Well take my average day which consists of touching about 5 hundred surfaces, times 365 days and that's 182500 contacts per year.

Say 1 out of a hundred surfaces is contaminated, that works out to 1825/10000 chance of infection, or 18.25%.

Helps to think things through with numbers. If you can. Otherwise you're doomed to be fooled by numbers. Again, and again, and again...

Point is, your article doesn't mention the other necessary key figure; namely what percentage of the surfaces we typically encounter are contaminated.

It's not about me disputing the figures cited, it's me pointing out that the article is obviously missing the other number that is necessary to support the conclusion that it's pushing.

You copypasta'd the link without stopping to think whether the article body supports the conclusion pushed in the headline.

[tebowlives]

"each contact with a contaminated surface has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing an infection."

Well take my average day which consists of touching about 5 hundred surfaces, times 365 days and that's 182500 contacts per year.

Say 1 out of a hundred surfaces is contaminated, that works out to 1825/10000 chance of infection, or 18.25%.

Helps to think things through with numbers. If you can. Otherwise you're doomed to be fooled by numbers. Again, and again, and again...

Point is, your article doesn't mention the other necessary key figure; namely what percentage of the surfaces we typically encounter are contaminated.

It's not about me disputing the figures cited, it's me pointing out that the article is obviously missing the other number that is necessary to support the conclusion that it's pushing.

You copypasta'd the link without stopping to think whether the article body supports the conclusion pushed in the headline.

Every day, I touch and retouch the same surfaces over and over plus hardly anyone else comes in contact with that surface.