General > General Technical Chat
Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus
Syntax Error:
An important variable is global connectivity. Cities that are international are at a greater risk than those where everyone stays inside the citidel.
Another variable is sociability. Football matches and festivals are the popularist culprits in the spread of Covid-19. Social distancing only works if a society can go without clubbing.
Maybe another variable is the 'mix density'? That's how close people have to be to get from A to B. If everyone travels alone by car the mix density is 0. If everyone travels by bus, the mix density is 1.
These would all be multipliers in a complex model.
cdev:
There are thousands of coronaviruses and other viruses in bats and other animals so we can expect new ones every couple of years. Thats a sobering thought.
SiliconWizard:
No need to inflate this out of proportion either. The common cold is also due to a coronavirus. Coronaviruses are actually very common.
cdev:
Rhinoviruses and coronaviruses. But youre right, many are coronaviruses and those coronaviruses rarely become life thretening except in the severaly iummunocompromised, or very young people. Its only SARS, MERS and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) that are.
cdev:
Well, they were planning on a massive world-wide downsizing anyway, before the epidemic. Its part of the WTO. They had been negotiating the terms off and on since the 80s. "Services" basically 80% of the economy. So its going to be huge. Right now its claimed they are throwing away trillions of dollars in wages that are too high.
This is the real reason they can't/wont fix anything.
--- Quote from: DrG on May 10, 2020, 04:39:35 pm ---
--- Quote from: Syntax Error on May 10, 2020, 04:32:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: jeffheath on May 10, 2020, 04:00:47 pm ---I don't understand the point of the maps and graphs. The more people in a place, the more people that have the disease. You talk about "reopening" as if counties and states have an on or off button. People going back to work physically will cause a rise in the number of people with the disease, obviously. That doesn't mean re-restricting "strategically" will help anything.
--- End quote ---
I agree. /--/ For high density population zones, reinfection is inevitable.
--- End quote ---
How much is inevitable? What is the proportion of possible reinfection that is inevitable - all of it? Be specific - everybody knows that SOME additional infections will occur (I don't even know what you mean by 'reinfection' because that literally means an individual who had been infected became infected again), but how much? Seriously, please answer the question. You sound like a representative of the "The Herd Immunity Crowd-Think".
C'mon man, we should be able to do better than that.
--- End quote ---
Actually, there is no certainty that people who have been infected wont get infected again. Its not certain because a lot of people who tested okay got reinfected or reactivated, so they simply dont know. It may end up being like some other viruses where the virus reactivates. At least that is what I have read recently. Recent events in Wuhan might be helpful in figuring that out. But, who can you trust. Governments are likely to spin news to support going back to the way it was before irregardless of what the science says they should do. Because they are being pressured by investors to reopen their factories. Its all about foreign investment, here too. They spend billions on a factory, they definitely dont want to leave it stting idle.
They will bring in people from other countries to do those jobs that the expensive Americans quit...
Which is what they were planning to do anyway. Since 1986. Thats a long time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version