Coronavirus is not a good argument for quitting cash

[cameldrv]

"There is no evidence that" is a phrase that drives me nuts. What they mean is that there is not a randomized controlled double blind study that shows something. My favorite explanation of the problem with this is: "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials" [1]

We know that viruses can live on wood and paper. We know that many people touch currency, and transfer viruses to and from currency. We do not need a randomized controlled trial to know that this might present a risk, especially with one of the most virulent and deadly pathogens ever encountered.

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

[ShorsHammer]

> "There is no evidence that" is a phrase that drives me nuts.

This is a phrase said in the article by Marilyn Roberts, a microbiologist at the University of Washington School of Public Health.

Also by the US Centers for Disease Control: “It may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

May I ask your virology qualifications?

This is followed up by:

> with one of the most virulent and deadly pathogens ever encountered

Even to a layman this raises some eyebrows. Considering the grievances about semantics here could you please back up that assertive statement with some evidence?

[dhab]

By that argument, we would have to boycott everything anyone with a disease ever touches - hard surfaces (virus is known to survive for up to a week) such as train rails would be tricky one - since we would have to send it back to the manufacturers with every suspicious contact?

I think cash has been known as dirty for a while now. There are ways to manage infection, without boycotting i think - with things such as washing hands frequently being sufficient in many cases.

"No evidence of that" is a valid argument.

[RandomBacon]

I pay cash for all my in-person purchases to attempt to prevent companies from data-mining my spending habits. I'll switch to cashless if it's just as private.

[jrockway]

I feel like the practical effect of this is that you're just subsidizing all those people that use credit cards to get frequent flyer miles. Stores raise their prices because most people use credit cards, so you're paying for that no matter what. Might as well get some frequent flyer miles.

Having said that, I'm shocked that you don't get monthly statements from your health insurance company that say "hey you bought a lot of potato chips and ice cream, pay us a dollar extra a month." It's coming, though, I'm sure.

[superkuh]

For me cash isn't so much about privacy (though that's nice) as about control. When you use a credit card or the like you are having a large impersonal corporation that has historically been influenced by both state actors and public opinion deciding who you can enter into transactions with.

It's a long leash but it's still a leash.

[codr7]

Do you really think that would ever happen in this system? That they would willingly let go of the opportunity to know everything about you?

The bigger problem is the power it gives the state, all it takes to stop you from being able to do anything in a cashless society is tapping a key.

[newscracker]

I try to do that as much as possible. I don’t want all of my interactions and transactions to be going through many intermediate parties. I also want to keep the freedom of cash alive for those who find it difficult or impossible to get or learn to use cards and online payments.

[Mathnerd314]

All the grocery stores here (Colorado) put their staple foods behind loyalty-program discounts. Presumably the loyalty ID is just as good an identifier as a CC#.

[kruczek]

I can understand better privacy of cash when buying something uncommon. But when doing standard everyday shopping, I don't really see much point.

It's either:

1. Every day I pay with a card at the grocery store, this leaks information about my whereabouts, or

2. Every X days I withdraw cash at the ATM, this also leaks information about my whereabouts

Is there any advantage (in terms of privacy) of using cash in such scenario? The only thing that comes to my mind is that price is also leaked when using a card. But I don't see much use of this information.

[intpete]

Pay with cash from before the outbreak. Just say, "Keep the change".

[ardy42]

> I'll switch to cashless if it's just as private.

If it were just as private, what would be the point?

[paulgerhardt]

On average credit cards have almost 2x the volume of germs as cash[1], but in this era I would be more concerned about the POS terminal itself.

Even with contactless cards or Apple Pay I still have to touch the same screen the previous customers (even just to tip). I would expect the terminal to be as dirty as a typical public door handle.

There may be a hygiene case for using QR codes as is universal now in China - but until we solve the privacy concerns I wouldn’t argue for it.

[1] https://lendedu.com/blog/dirty-money-credit-cards/

[IAmEveryone]

The number of germs isn't a useful measure. A credit card is probably full of your own germs, while cash comes to you with a representative sample of other peoples' microbiota. A screen could be effectively wiped even for every single customer, or you could wash/disinfect that one fingertip, or use one of the strawberries you are paying for (remember not to eat it).

[dannyw]

Why do you have to touch the screen? Here in Australia, I never make physical contact with anything.

[jobigoud]

> On average credit cards have almost 2x the volume of germs as cash[1]

They measured this by surface area, which makes zero sense in this context. You need to measure by value spent. If I need to spend $200 over a week in multiple errands, how many germs for a card vs cash? The credit card is always the same germs while the notes are new germs every time they change hand and can spread nasty stuff much more easily.

[seanmcdirmid]

QR is a pain compared to contactless payments. The problem I have is that I have a transit card as well as a credit card, so I can’t just slap the back of my phone (which has both cards) onto the POS.

[unishark]

"Though it’s theoretically possible, there is no evidence..."

Article is a lot more ambiguous than headline. But I'm getting tired of this kind of argument, especially now with coronavirus, where obviously we aren't going to have the definitive answers yet. Applying human intelligence to an uncertain situation (i.e. using theory instead of experiment) says we should be extra careful. Oh but "what about people who...", so let's ignore intelligent thinking and tell people to continue taking extra risks.

[drummer]

Cashless is the authoritarian and banker dream. They are pushing hard for it worldwide.

[RichardHeart]

Nations should always circulate physical cash. Cash is a national security requirement for the function of society during disasters, man made and otherwise. Your card will not work. Cash is a human rights issue for those who are underbanked, unbanked, or value their privacy.

[CivBase]

> Though it’s theoretically possible, there is no evidence that physical money—or any inanimate surface, for that matter—helps the virus spread.

Meanwhile, the top article on HN right now is about how to setup decontamination stations for groceries and delivered goods.

EDIT: Suddenly it's off the front page and I look dumb. Here's the article I was talking about:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22641677

[danschumann]

The brain emits a pain response when spending physical currency, something very useful for controlling spending.

[sokoloff]

We teach our kids to save and manage money with physical currency and make them hand it over to buy their toy or candy or whatever for exactly this reason.

Sometimes we’re out and they’ve not brought money with them, so we get clear agreement for them to pay us as soon as we get home. That results in much more anguish and tears (at home) than the former case, I guess because they’re now giving over cash for “nothing” (that they don’t already have).

It’s fascinating to watch.

[davchana]

True, I spent a lot less on leisure eating when I switched over to Cash only for few months. The pain of actual cash notes going out from your wallet makes you rethink many of the purchases.

[jon889]

I don’t know about this, on the rare occasion I have cash when I spend it feels like I’m getting the item for free. However every time I get a monzo notification saying how much I just spent and how much money I have left for this month, I wince a little. I think it’s just what you’re used to

[OGWhales]

I’ve never heard this, but that rings so true. I don’t even notice with a card but it’s very obvious with cash.

[dannyw]

We should have credit cards that shock you when you pay.

[ccktlmazeltov]

My personal belief on why this is not a good argument: our phones are pretty dirty too.

[threatofrain]

But employees won't have to touch your phone.

[Wowfunhappy]

But at least only you touch it.

[Zenst]

Money has evolved from gold/silver coins to forms of brass, copper, other mixes for coins and banknotes been mostly paper and recently moved towards plastic.

Which made me wonder - do bacteria and viruses live longer upon modern money than money of old.

[agravier]

Silver at least shows antimicrobial properties.

[scout4]

It's a great argument for UBI.

Sanders-style minimum wage hikes won't do us much good when there's 20, 30, or even 40% unemployment, which will soon be a reality if these lockdowns persist.

[Twixes]

Yang-style UBI would not be livable without a job anyway, it'd just allow landlords to pocket even more dollars from urban dwellers. That would not help the unemployed and minimum wage folks at all – especially if we cut other benefits and implemented VAT (a tax based on consumption, which is basically regressive) to pay for this. For the unemployed there should simply be a solid state safety net with livable unemployment benefits. Although in this crisis it's critical that we keep jobs so that it's possible to restart economic activity as smoothly as possible when the danger passes.

[dabbledash]

If there’s 50% unemployment because we’ve stopped the economy, handing out dollars won’t help. There won’t be anything to buy.

[airstrike]

It's also a great counterargument against UBI

[badrabbit]

Yeah no...I can't imagine not having cash. Every card purchase i make is made at a cost to my privacy, having my personal data mined. If there is a digital product or card (like cash gift cards) where it's value cannot be revoked dynamically and can be exchanged for goods without requiring an active network connection, I am all for it. But those are the entry level requirements for me. Anything short of that comes at a cost I would not want to pay.

[jon889]

It’s probably not even about the cash itself but being in close contact with the cashier as you hand it over. They are doing that the whole day and we’ve been told many times to stand at least a meter away from each other.

Also card/contactless payments are quicker than cash, and cutting seconds off transactions adds up and reduces the amount of time people have to queue and stay in the store.

[zzo38computer]

I always pay in cash (although I have a bank account for transactions dealing directly with the government, but I always withdraw the money when possible). However, recently with this virus, I am not buying anything at all, just using what I already have. Once the quarantine is finish I intend to continue to use cash for payments.

[gnicholas]

Two things I noticed recently:

1: Apple Pay is nice because you can pay without physical contact.

2: Apple Pay does not work if you are wearing a mask (we have immune-compromised family members and respiratory issues in our family).

[speleding]

> Apple Pay does not work if you are wearing a mask

Unless you have an Apple Watch, you don't need to use your phone when you have one of those (just once in the morning when you put on the watch, to authenticate)

[tricolon]

Glad I'm still using Touch ID, then.

[procinct]

Can’t you type a passcode into your phone instead of having it scan your face?

[achenatx]

viruses live a lot longer on hard surfaces than soft surfaces like fabric and tissue. Lifetime on soft surfaces that can absorb moisture from the virus is like 15 minutes.

[aww_dang]

Would be interesting to see cash doped with antimicrobial compounds.

[lousken]

Even though we might have not hard evidence, I still think it's the first reasonable argument I heard, so I went conctactless at least for the time being.

[manquer]

Perhaps Coronavirus and Covid-19 specifically are not transmitted this way. There are plenty of contiguous diseases which are. From a retail worker safety perspective it is the right way to go

[Medicalidiot]

SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated to live on surfaces for multiple days. I don't know if your phone touching the card reader or handling cash is going to change much.