This calculator says you need a 385 sample size for a billion (or infinite) population: https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=...
Please check the theory presented below the calculator, it explains why such a low number is enough for a confidence level of 95% that the real value is within ±5% of the measured/surveyed value.
> The samples in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States can be taken as representative of these countries' general adult population under the age of 75.
> Due to the fact that the vast majority of the data was collected via Ipsos' online panels (India being the only exception, in which 1,800 were interviewed face-to-face and 400 were interviewed online), participation tends to consist of those who have access to the necessary technology. The samples in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Uganda are more urban, more educated and/or more affluent than the general population. While not nationally representative, the survey results for these countries provide a useful and unique indication of the direction of public opinion.
>
> Weighting has been employed to balance demographics and ensure that the sample's composition reflects that of the adult population according to the most recent census data.
>
> The precision of Ipsos online polls are calculated using a credibility interval with a poll of 1,000 accurate to +/- 3•5 percentage points and of 500 accurate to +/- 5.0 percentage points. For more information on the Ipsos use of credibility intervals, please visit the Ipsos website.
Ipsos is fairly reputable in the field, FWIW.
But that theory is useless in practice, when the efficacy of the survey is entirely determined by the sampling bias. Here we have a survey of a few thousand people who had internet access and were on whatever websites promoted this survey and chose to click through the survey and had their votes counted by whatever "spam filtering" logic was used, and multiplied by whatever "population correction factor" was selected, and they're trying to somehow pass it off as "85% of People".
Its bogus through and through.
If a competing research team had gone out and done a survey with the question rephrased as, "Do you want a global ban on medical syringes and bottled water?"
You might find out, amazingly, 92% of people strongly support single-use plastics!
> The United Nations agreed in 2022 to develop a global treaty to end plastic pollution. How important or unimportant do you believe it is to have global rules to…
> Ban unnecessary single-use plastic products, e.g., shopping bags, cutlery, cups & plates?
As survey questions go, this is actually a pretty precise question.
[0] https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/...
The word "unnecessary" also adds bias, and skews the results: "Of course we shouldn't unnecessarily use plastic. Oh, but my personal water bottle and the bag I get my food in and the cutlery I use to eat it and the... well not those, those are very necessary: I need them to eat and drink!"
That’s my point. These simple things are NEVER as simple as these trite push polls imply.
Not in my six decades of experience.
The majority of people about where I live don't use plastic trash bags and are well accustomed to keeping mice, rats, cockroaches, etc. at bay.
I must say, I'm surprised the rats of which you speak are apparently unable to chew through a plastic bag ... why are they so disabled wrt other rats about the globe?