Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday April 11 2019, @03:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the Superfungi-is-the-name-of-my-grunge-rock-band dept.

[...] In 2013, researchers at Michigan State University carried out a thankless, if mildly creepy, study. They observed how more than 3,500 residents of their college town used the sink at various restrooms after they carried out their business.

Some 10 percent of people observed chose not to wash their hands at all, which is simply not an acceptable way to end a trip to the bathroom. But even the vast majority of people who tried to wash their hands managed to totally flub the proper routine. Almost a quarter of people washed their hands without soap, for instance. And only 5 percent washed their hands for at least 15 seconds or longer, which is actually lower than the 20-second minimum of handwashing recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

https://gizmodo.com/in-a-world-of-mrsa-and-superfungi-you-need-to-start-wa-1833889953


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 12 2019, @01:23PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @01:23PM (#828576) Journal

    Because that's not the fucking conclusion of that paper you just linked. Their assertion is that broad pollution levels, not just antibiotic pollution levels are determinate of AR levels in natural bacteria.

    Broad pollution levels != antibiotic abuse. Sounds like the paper confirms the AC's claim.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday April 12 2019, @02:36PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 12 2019, @02:36PM (#828612) Journal

    Only if you take their claim to be a generic null hypothesis of a grossly oversimplified version of my claim.

    But they're pretty clearly asserting, in the context of the conversation, that hospitals are at fault. That is not in line with the state of the literature. Even being generous that they're merely trying to refute what I said, they did intentionally ignore that I qualified what I said with phrases like "dominate sources" and "Of course hospitals have them, and of course some strains originate in hospitals".

    So their refutation was a "here's an sort-of not-really exception to a thing you've said can't be overgeneralized"