| General > General Technical Chat |
| Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus |
| << < (244/447) > >> |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on May 08, 2020, 07:52:54 am --- --- Quote from: rodpp on May 08, 2020, 06:21:30 am ---The later two are our best desires, but it's hard to justify the economic loss of a long lock down waiting for a vaccine or treatment that we don't know if is viable or how long it will take. --- End quote --- Many governments (including ours) were literally saying "These lockdown laws will stay in effect until a vaccine is found", until a week or two later when the reality dawned on them that's the dumbest idea in history. --- End quote --- You have to add some nuances to that. You'll see that most countries will bring things back to normal in the next few months with the exception that large scale events will remain forbidden, staying and working at home (as much as possible) and social distancing will be required. Unless it turns out that stricter rules are necessary to keep Covid-19 spreading at a limited rate but at this point nobody knows exactly where the tipping point lies. So yes, the lockdown laws will remain in effect but the rules won't be as strict. IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19. It is kind of like testing when a fuse blows without going through a whole box of fuses. If you start at 100A and step down you'll likely need to test many fuses. If you start at 1mA and slowly ramp up, you'll only blow one fuse. |
| nctnico:
--- Quote from: DrG on May 08, 2020, 02:50:25 am ---Well into Covid-19 we were being told that there was no point in wearing face masks - even to the extent that some said you would actually enhance your chance of infection wearing one (apparently because you were more likely to touch your face). How do you think that "decision" will be scored? Admittedly, I have not seen irrefutable evidence that wearing the typical cheap face mask has any significant effect on the likelihood of infection. Once we know, however, that the virus can spread through droplets (cough / sneeze / say and spray), do we need to run the experiment to have some level of confidence that if you are infected (symptomatic or asymptomatic) it is beneficial to wear a face mask to mitigate spreading your virus-filled droplets? I know that some have said that the early decision to not recommend wearing masks was for other reasons (i.e., leaving no masks for critical workers), but that is hardly being truthful and it made little or no sense or, was downright disingenuous and hiding a different problem. --- End quote --- The Dutch team of experts (about 40 scientists) which gives advice to the government is still at the position that wearing a face mask in general has no value in the grand scheme of things. However since a face mask has a limited positive effect when used temporary, wearing one will be mandatory in public transport from next month. Using a face mask right is a big issue. I just spotted a photo showing a woman selling flowers in Mexico. She had a nice floral face mask which didn't cover her nose. |
| rodpp:
Australia did very well, according with the available data, and deserves slowly going back to the normal. Looking at new cases per day, it started increasing, reaching a local maximum, and decreased to very low numbers. Now it will start to relaxing and at one point the cases will start to increase again, and more restrictive measures will be necessary. Here in Brazil we started with social distance measures very well, it was early and through all the country. But when the new cases curve started to stabilize we relaxed, before the decrease of new cases. The consequence is a very high (out of control) increase of new cases, and various states are now facing the health system collapse, requiring a total lock down to remedy the situation. But as the system has a delay of about two weeks, even with a effective lock down now we will suffer a lot in the next two or more weeks. Unfortunately, maybe our government will not take this seriously and the situation will be worse. To be clear, the health system collapse means that regardless of your financial situation, if you have a health insurance or not, if you get sick and need an ICU, you will not have. It's when the doctors must choose who will have treatment, and who will send back to die in home. No one wants to be in that situation. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: nctnico on May 08, 2020, 08:47:39 am ---IMHO it is unlikely we'll see total lockdowns agains. Countries like the Netherlands and Sweden have shown that keeping people locked inside isn't necessary to prevent an exponential spread of Covid-19. --- End quote --- And again, there never was a total lock down anywhere, as typically circa 40% of people were still out of their home doing essential work. So yeah, not surprising that you don't necessarily need to lock people in their homes. I think just general awareness and good hygiene is likely enough to curtail true exponential spread in the general population. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: rodpp on May 08, 2020, 10:54:39 am ---Australia did very well, according with the available data, and deserves slowly going back to the normal. Looking at new cases per day, it started increasing, reaching a local maximum, and decreased to very low numbers. Now it will start to relaxing and at one point the cases will start to increase again, and more restrictive measures will be necessary. --- End quote --- It's going to be hard to justify another shutdown unless daily cases increase by an order of magnitude here. We are currently oscillating around 20 cases a day, usually as the result of a few particular specific locations like a famous nursing home here where 16% of our deaths nation wide have come from. It's fascinating the study the data on this stuff, it's rather addictive. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |