“In most situations, the #risk of #infection from #touching a surface is low.”

It's already known since a while that the highest risk is indoors via airborne transmission

Aérosols

Seriously? Zerohedge?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
In this article, they pick and choose the one part on the CDC website that supports their agenda and conveniently ignore the section explaining that the data in a lot of these studies is rather unreliable because they were measuring in outdoor environments.
Better read the source article on the CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/more/science-and-research/surface-transmission.html), not the interpretation of a partisan conspiracy mongering site.

Seriously? Pluspora? "The censorship pod". In the couple of years since your Borg Pod came online, I've ended up blocking about 90% of the Gestapo / Karen / Censorship Nazi's from there. Any ideas why? (Don't worry- I only included links from Wikipedia...)

I read the source. It lists its sources, and then reiterates the findings at the bottom of the article: risk of infection from touching a surface is low.

Facebook has a fact-checker opening for you. Have you heard back from them?

+1, @BR 549 ☎.

I was going to add...

What's the implication here?

When people encounter something new, they can tend to fear it because of what it could be capable of or dismiss it until it proves that it's worth fearing. I think with COVID we went way too far in the fear direction, but I also think in the short term at least, doing so saved lives, and that's what people want...

I think CDC guidelines will tend towards being more careful than the data suggest is necessary - their job is controlling disease. It seems, if your one goal is controlling disease, you'd tend towards being careful with the new thing (and also maybe have made sure there's a stockpile of PPE in case a pandemic occurs but hey this is a government agency). As data comes available and more is learned, I think it's wrong to shame scientists for changing their mind. That's the essence of science... Observe something... a disease spreading... hypothesize about how it spreads... run experiments to test that hypothesis (or collect data from the real world over time) and if the data is wrong, your conclusion is that the hypothesis about how it spreads was wrong. That's the scientific process.

Now, the problem I have... is... taking CDC recommendations and translating those directly into law/policy. The CDC's concerns are very narrow. But life is not. Policy and law needs to factor in specialized knowledges and recommendations like the CDC's with that of others, and just a little critical thinking. Maybe some of the guidance is good, or easy enough to follow with minimal risk. Do those things. But if they wanted everyone confined to their homes for 3 weeks under martial law in order to stop the disease... maybe you need to balance that against the input/wants/needs of others.