How to make stress your friend (based on the study in the Forbes article)
From what I’ve read, many people are feeling stressed about coronavirus. According to the study, the people who are being harmed are the ones who believe that stress is bad.
Anyone who wants other people to go along with their view that taking precautions is bad may be trying to make themselves feel better by having other people agree with them, which is wishful thinking and not warranted by the science.
I follow the science that I’ve seen posted in this thread. The level of risk people want to take is up to them. Some people who say they have a high risk tolerance may only have a high risk tolerance in that particular area.
In the hospitals where I work, most of the medical and nursing staff seem perfectly comfortable sitting down in the cafeteria (usually well dispersed through the room) and eating their food like normal human beings. So far the vast majority of them have not been struck down by the plague. I’m not comfortable eating in the cafeteria, even a dozen feet away from someone else, but I’m aware that this may be irrational.
I wouldn’t have any qualms about cooking it immediately. But I might be careful to wash my hands after touching the box, and/or use a paper towel or something to handle it rather than touching the box directly. (Even that, I think, is probably unnecessary—but that’s “probably,” not “certainly.”)
The fact that it’s a box of mac and cheese, and not some other object, is, as far as I understand, irrelevant.
My boyfriend is 100% on board with our process. The only time he got frustrated was when I tried to change the rules once to something slightly less extreme without going over it with him first because I was trying to make myself OK with something “lesser” (for several reasons: making it easier on us, trying to “feel” less excessive [didn’t work], feeling embarrassed at my level of precaution)- this was all early on, before we got settled into the process.
Anyway, I check in with him regularly to make sure we’re still cool and ask if he thinks there’s any area where we might feel ok about scaling back. Other than considering collecting mail and packages sooner, he’s just fine with the process as is. We mayyyyyy consider a lesser thing for non perishables in the future (wiping down OR quarantining, not both- we float what-ifs all the time, but then look at each other and say, “Nah…”)
Today we shared an apple that we purchased six days ago and only rinsed well today before consuming (we set the apples aside without washing them six days ago). Hoo boy, we’re really pushing the envelope!!
Yes, as I read your thread I hoped, “Someone please mention groceries…” and searched around a couple times for a new post on the topic, and finally figured I might as well fess up to my reality.
Yeah, that’s our approach as well. If it can’t stand a few days in the garage (~low 90s), then it gets wiped down and put up. We wipe the counters afterward and wash our hands.
The only thing that isn’t getting wiped with disinfectant or left in the garage for 3 days or so is fresh produce, and it’s either washed prior to use, or peeled anyway.
OK, then I would hope you find my grocery handling practices reasonable, i.e. newly-delivered groceries get set aside to self-decontaminate for a few days and hands get washed after handling those items.
Dr. Emanuel Goldman (Professor of Microbiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, New Jersey Medical School):
A clinically significant risk of severe acute respiratory
syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission
by fomites (inanimate surfaces or objects) has been
assumed on the basis of studies that have little
resemblance to real-life scenarios.
…
I am not disputing the
findings of these studies, only the applicability to real
life. For example, in the studies that used a sample of
10⁷, 10⁶, and 10⁴ particles of infectious virus on a small
surface area, these concentrations are a lot higher
than those in droplets in real-life situations, with the
amount of virus actually deposited on surfaces likely to
be several orders of magnitude smaller.
Hence, a reallife situation is better represented in the work of Dowell
and colleagues in which no viable virus was found on
fomites.
…
In my opinion, the chance of transmission through
inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances
where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the
surface, and someone else touches that surface soon
after the cough or sneeze (within 1–2 h). I do not
disagree with erring on the side of caution, but this
can go to extremes not justified by the data. Although
periodically disinfecting surfaces and use of gloves
are reasonable precautions especially in hospitals, I
believe that fomites that have not been in contact
with an infected carrier for many hours do not pose
a measurable risk of transmission in non-hospital
settings. A more balanced perspective is needed to curb
excesses that become counterproductive.
Can you find any medical authorities recommending it? Because, I have heard rather explicit comments to the contrary ie. you shouldn’t worry about catching it from grocery packages.
We’re a grocery cleaning household. We have a decontamination pantry for shelf-stable stuff that we won’t need for a few days. Stuff we need sooner and fridge stuff gets put on a tarp and sprayed with a chlorine solution or wiped down with wipes. Maybe 10-15 minutes of effort. Even if it’s a total waste of time, it’s not that much time and it gives us a little more peace of mind.
But I also think many of the public sanitation actions are mostly a waste of time and give people a huge sense of false security. The environmental sanitation done by stores, transportation, gyms, etc. seems like it’s more to make the customers feel safe rather than providing actual safety. In crowded, enclosed spaces, the greatest risk is from airborne virus being inhaled rather than touching a contaminated surface. It doesn’t matter how sterile the surfaces of a gym are if it’s packed with people breathing hard and exhaling droplets into the air.
IMHO it’s not unreasonable to do those things (with the caveats below), but it’s also not unreasonable not to do them.
Caveats:
If you’re doing those things instead of taking other precautions that experts recommend, that’s unreasonable.
If doing those things causes you significant hardship or expense, it’s probably unreasonable to do them.
If doing those things reduces your level of stress and anxiety, that alone may make them worth doing. But if it increases your level of stress and anxiety, that would make them unreasonable.
If you’re taking those precautions with groceries but not with other items that enter your home from outside, you may well be acting unreasonably (or at least inconsistently).
I don’t think inconsistent is always a bad thing. Risk is not all or nothing. I think it’s perfectly rational to select a small set of mildly or even moderately risky behaviors and to avoid others in order to limit total risk profile.
In your quote, it’s clear that the risk is not zero. He’s just saying that with limited attention that it’s more important to focus on social distancing because the risk is very low for contamination of objects but high for airborne transmission from others. That said, for any individual person, if you’re the person who gets it from an object, it doesn’t matter that you’re the anomaly. So as long as someone is already social distancing, reducing surface contamination is still risk reduction.
It would be more helpful if you provided your cites for what you’ve heard. I’ve seen many headlines that say that surfaces aren’t contaminants, but upon reading the article more carefully, they’re not saying the risk is zero.
Here’s an example.
But the title doesn’t reflect the actual contents.
Several of the articles I’ve read have a title that doesn’t accurately reflect the contents. Perhaps your sources are one of those.
Most of the people in this thread who are taking precautions are following the guidelines set forth in the article of quarantining the items for 72 hours and washing produce.
