> The key question: how much money (or resources) should you, or we, be willing to pay to gain more life?
This whole article is based on a false premise. We can spend x dollars to stop this virus from getting to poor old grandma. We cannot stop this virus. Any vaccine will not help significantly either as it has mutated many times and will continue to do so. The shutdown and stay at home were only measures to slow infection rates, buying time to prepare hospital beds, tests, masks ETC.
This virus will continue to spread until 80% of the population has had it (herd immunity). The financial cost has been paid, we are re-opening and will not close again unless we overwhelm the measures that we have put in place. The second wave of the 1969 pandemic virus is still with us folks (it's one of the seasonal flu varieties). This one isn't going away save a miracle.
Pandemics are nothing new. We get through them and move on (sounds harsh but is the reality). We are a communal people. It isn't possible to "burn out" this particular virus. This article seems to think we somehow can buy our way out of it.
You contradict yourself. Either the virus is mutating rapidly, meaning there can be no herd immunity, or it is not and a vaccine is likely. They are both based on the same underlying biological facts.
> What would you think about sandboxing all media related components?
You have to be very _specific_ when you say _sandboxing_.
Since, the attack surface is mostly at the decoding layer - there are at least few dozen ways to sandbox the processing logic on modern UNIX-like OS based on the requirements:
1. Farm out, give it its own namespace and filtered list of seccomp2 calls to do the decoding.
2. Farm out, compartmentalize the decoding layer to BSD jails
3. Same as 2) but using chroot - give the necessary libs/bins/mount
4. Farm out, run the decoding components on a separate VM - somewhat akin to QubeOS.
5. Farm out, run ephemeral spark jobs to process the decoding on a compartmentalized VMs/Containers....
These days the word _sandbox_ is overloaded.
It used to be that you put things that are in userland under selinux and go to bed at night.....
Sorry... Trying to understand. Are you saying that all these little kids died of aids? How did they contract it? Most kids are 3 feet tall by age three or four. Also, why so many deaths in 2002? Very effective drugs had been widely available for a long time.
> Most kids are 3 feet tall by age three or four. Also, why so many deaths in 2002? Very effective drugs had been widely available for a long time.
Effective HIV suppression is not cheap, and usually out of reach of developing countries or poor communities such as… pretty much all of sub-saharan africa, where the AIDS pandemic remains essentially unchecked.
Given mother-to-child transmission is somewhere between 15 and 45% without mitigation measures (which are unlikely to be in place in a country where a quarter of the population is infected), we're talking 5~10% of children born infected.
Yet moderate smokers of 40+ years have no higher risk than non smokers... Strange (just ask my 96yo grandmother who smoked for 42yrs and is still sharp as a pin mentally)
There are a lot of other bad things that the people in Mexico city are exposed to. Why blame Alzheimer's on air pollution???
Oh, wait... thought Herpes got in the brain and caused it...
Scientists don't have a clue what really causes it (yet they have many clues). Probably 1,000 different things which affect 1,000 different people , well differently.
Sorry for pessimism, but I have been disappointment with nearly every other graphene miracle product so far. Waiting for this one to not pan out as well. Why doesn't Popular Science just do full graphene publications since I am always equally disappointment by how many amazing things in there never pan out.
Just look back through the years where the WHO has posted information and data that has been false. There were scientists and doctors who disagreed, those doctors were correct. So YouTube wouldn't allow correct information in this scenario for Covid 19?
In Canada for months we followed WHO's directions to a tee and ended up rapid growth of infections until we did a 180 and implemented nearly every measure that the WHO disagreed with.
Taiwan is one of the few countries to have very few cases, and they essentially did a lot of measures the WHO did not recommend initially.
WHAT measures did the WHO "disagree" with that saved Canada? I'd love to see this post cited up to include what measuring you're referring to in both parts (agree w/WHO and disagree) and where the WHO disagreed with Canada's measures.
EDIT: As of 3/30 WHO still doesn't recommend wearing masks (except for the obviously sick) - contrary to Vancouver BC who now require at least a covering or mask.
> The WHO advised against the public wearing masks
Nope. Your article is actually about the UK's government's advice and lumps in the WHO. Here's a WHO publication from 30th of January 2020 [0] that advises all sick with "flu-like symptoms" be provided a mask (as well as healthcare workers).
The WHO, like every national government, have recommended prioritizing masks to the sick and healthcare workers since the start of the year. Canada didn't contradict that and still doesn't as far as I've read.
Giving masks to asymptomatic members of the public only makes sense when there's a large enough supply to do so without starving essential services or known carriers.
> and advised against travel restrictions.
Your own link contradicts this claim.
> However, in certain circumstances, measures that restrict the movement of people may prove temporarily useful, such as in settings with few international connections and limited response capacities.
> Travel measures that significantly interfere with international traffic may only be justified at the beginning of an outbreak, as they may allow countries to gain time, even if only a few days, to rapidly implement effective preparedness measures. Such restrictions must be based on a careful risk assessment, be proportionate to the public health risk, be short in duration, and be reconsidered regularly as the situation evolves.
They then go on to essentially say that it won't work (and spoilers: It didn't work, they were 100% correct).
It also fails to show how Canada acted against the WHO advice? That was the core claim above, and your response doesn't even attempt to show that.
In fact Canada has been in lock-step with the WHO since the beginning and still is. Even according to your links.
The WHO still right now does not support wearing masks if you’re not sick. The fact that we know that people can be sick and spread the virus and still not show any symptoms suggests that every country in Asia supporting wearing the masks early on is right and the WHO is wrong.
As ever, the face mask issue is more complicated than it appears at first glance.
Yes, if everyone in the world had a sufficient supply of face masks and wore them correctly all of the time then the R0 would drop significantly.
The two keys parts of that statement are _sufficient supply_ and _wear them correctly_.
There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.
I've seen people who have bought facemasks touching their face and fiddling with the masks. They don't know how to wear them correctly, making their purchase a complete waste. They've wasted stock that could have been made available to healthcare workers.
If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.
But it isn't and they aren't.
WHO seems to understand this and so it seems to be a factor in their advice.
I believe they may have even made a statement to this effect at some point?
It's not complicated at all, except for those who wish to cover up responsibility for how unprepared we have been.
>There is not a sufficient supply of face masks for everyone on the planet. Anyone purchasing face masks for themselves (without showing symptoms) are taking stock away from, for example, healthcare workers. Who definitely need the supplies.
Anyone that has access to cloth can make a rudimentary mask that is better than nothing.
>If the world was perfect and every human was perfect then yes I would agree with your statement.
> They then go on to essentially say that it won't work (and spoilers: It didn't work, they were 100% correct).
How didn't it work?
All of the really successful countries at handling this pandemic continue to have significant travel measures that interfere with international traffic.
For example: Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Vietnam, even (infuriatingly, given their opposition to anyone else doing it [0]) Mainland China itself!
I think he saying that Canada followed WHO advice to their detriment whereas Taiwan strayed from WHO advice with success. I don't know about any specific examples but the efficacy of masks is one I've heard about -- essentially the WHO discouraged use of masks whereas now the common wisdom seems to be that even makeshift masks when widely used are a lot better than none.
Taiwan is an interesting case. They are not recognized as, really anything, except part of "One China" by the UN. Anyway - WHO wouldn't talk to them, even when they asked nicely.
But they, like HK (and Vietnam, and SG and I don't know who else) are part of the "China is asshoe" club (i.e. the TW believe that the Chinese government will always lie and obfuscate, true or not), and had pretty direct experience with SARS and the other corona virus (not MERS, but my brain isn't working). In any case - they had protocols in place start mandating masks - pretty much day 1. They also paid for a factory expansion of the largest vendors, pretty much day 1, and pre-paid for a pretty large order.
I heard a rumor that the Vietnamese actually hacked a Chinese "mainframe" and stole materials that allowed them to prepare. I don't know if this is true, and it is not related to Taiwan's already-in-place response plan.
Richard Dawkins recently said that HK is doing well because it followed the recommendations of the WHO.
Which is literally not the case. They wore masks, and protested to get borders closed to non-citizens asap. If the citizens had not taken things into their own hands I fear they wouldn't be in such a good position as they are now.
The WHO needs to be dismantled. china has far too much influential power in the WHO. There should be 0 politics within the WHO, no pandering to the ccp. They should exist to help everyone in the world during an outbreak like this.
Why do I always see articles like this? I am pretty sure that everyone knows that Amish eat healthier, exercise more (very low obesity - the cause of 60% of Western health problems), don't drink or smoke, ingest and inhale far less plastics and chemicals and a large portion of their health care money isn't wasted on health care system overhead (administration). Oh one more thing, 80% of doctor visits and filled prescriptions today are completely unnecessary and unhelpful, also 20% of surgeries. The Amish only use health care or get surgeries or see a doctor when they really need too. Cut out the cost for that too.
It's funny how today's most complex problems are so simply avoided by simple people.
>I am pretty sure that everyone knows that Amish eat healthier
By what definition? According to mainstream health organizations and even still government guidelines, they eat very poorly. Their diet is very high in saturated fat, which although healthy in reality, is not healthy according to the government. They also eat plenty of sugar, the other common scapegoat for dietary problems.
>don't drink or smoke,
They drink and smoke at lower rates, but they absolutely do drink and smoke.
Everyone involved would have been better off if Starbucks just started a charity to help homeless people. Political correctness and feelings (vs logic and foresight) just cause more problems.
Homeless people really need public bathrooms! Showers would be great, too. So far, even west coast cities haven't really begun to attempt to build public bathroom infrastructure at any scale (AFAIK). Not in Seattle, anyway.
Here, there are public parks, but often those bathrooms (and drinking fountains) are closed in the winter.
I wouldn't have thought so, a charity would unlikely do anything tangible, not in practice. The "unit" cost would be too high to accommodate their needs, as they'd be exclusive. (i.e. they need a place to hang out and non-homeless people would not go there). Likely better off set against the general flow of people through SB's or wherever - not that that is a remotely complete solution.
Unfortunately this isn't about helping people. I think they feel pressured to do some thing related to the physical stores to avoid an optics problem. And this is the problem they are trying to solve, not poverty.
This whole article is based on a false premise. We can spend x dollars to stop this virus from getting to poor old grandma. We cannot stop this virus. Any vaccine will not help significantly either as it has mutated many times and will continue to do so. The shutdown and stay at home were only measures to slow infection rates, buying time to prepare hospital beds, tests, masks ETC.
This virus will continue to spread until 80% of the population has had it (herd immunity). The financial cost has been paid, we are re-opening and will not close again unless we overwhelm the measures that we have put in place. The second wave of the 1969 pandemic virus is still with us folks (it's one of the seasonal flu varieties). This one isn't going away save a miracle.
Pandemics are nothing new. We get through them and move on (sounds harsh but is the reality). We are a communal people. It isn't possible to "burn out" this particular virus. This article seems to think we somehow can buy our way out of it.