Coronavirus / COVID-19

[a completely inoffensive name]

Picture is funny, but if they really didn't want oils on the hardware it would have been stored in a cleanroom.

[Montmorency]

Picture is funny, but if they really didn't want oils on the hardware it would have been stored in a cleanroom.

Equipment can always be cleaned, it's not an imminent safety hazard.

But what's the point? The story behind the picture is that Marco Rubio "dared" Pence to touch it. These people think it's cool and good to make a mess that professionals in the background will clean up for them. It's a mindset highly conducive to incompetence and negligence, without even taking into consideration everything else we know about them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Equipment can always be cleaned, it's not an imminent safety hazard.

Just to be annoying, it depends on the nature of the equipment/process.

Semiconductor manufacturing is on one end of the extreme as far as environmental deviation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Italy is now in complete lockdown.

It looks like travel between regions is basically going to be stopped completely, entry and exit to the country severely restricted, schools and universities to close.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51810673

People will need to continue to work, though, becaUSE THE BASIC FUNCTIONS OF THE ECONOMY, FOOD DISTRIBUTION ETC. WILL NEED TO CONTINUE.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I thought this article (published in Nov 2017 and authored by noted historian John M. Barry) pointed out some striking parallels from 1918's deadly H1N1 outbreak to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak. Obviously two different viruses; over 100 years of medical advances; a very different world than now:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ear-180965222/

What's striking to me about the article (among other things) was this:

That is why, in my view, the most important lesson from 1918 is to tell the truth. Though that idea is incorporated into every preparedness plan I know of, its actual implementation will depend on the character and leadership of the people in charge when a crisis erupts.

I recall participating in a pandemic “war game” in Los Angeles involving area public health officials. Before the exercise began, I gave a talk about what happened in 1918, how society broke down, and emphasized that to retain the public’s trust, authorities had to be candid. “You don’t manage the truth,” I said. “You tell the truth.” Everyone shook their heads in agreement.

Next, the people running the game revealed the day’s challenge to the participants: A severe pandemic influenza virus was spreading around the world. It had not officially reached California, but a suspected case—the severity of the symptoms made it seem so—had just surfaced in Los Angeles. The news media had learned of it and were demanding a press conference.

The participant with the first move was a top-ranking public health official. What did he do? He declined to hold a press conference, and instead just released a statement: More tests are required. The patient might not have pandemic influenza. There is no reason for concern.

I was stunned. This official had not actually told a lie, but he had deliberately minimized the danger; whether or not this particular patient had the disease, a pandemic was coming. The official’s unwillingness to answer questions from the press or even acknowledge the pandemic’s inevitability meant that citizens would look elsewhere for answers, and probably find a lot of bad ones. Instead of taking the lead in providing credible information he instantly fell behind the pace of events. He would find it almost impossible to get ahead of them again. He had, in short, shirked his duty to the public, risking countless lives.

And that was only a game.

Does anyone else think that in some respects we haven't learned much in 100 years about dealing with pandemics?

[Greyblades]

Considering this time around it was the chinese who first encountered it I think it was less lack of understanding and more the consequnces of being seen to assume responsability.

Admittedly we arent exactly seeing an overflow of candidness from our own Leaders about this.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Given the "informed" nature of many of our fellow citizens, coupled with the inevitably conflict/blame framing of media reportage, we have trained our leaders to obfuscate and sidle away from any fixed response. While this is somewhat true in all things, it is especial true of natural disasters and epidemics. There only choice is to lose and look bad.

Science says stick to the truth and spread the word -- which will do as much/more than anything to minimize the impact -- but the public WILL focus on the outliers of highest risk and demand something be done about them and that their security be absolutely preserved. Never mind the fact that absolute security with such things is impossible, and that the most effective and least invasive counters have already been put forward by the scientific truth-sayers, more will be demanded and the politicians know they will be blamed.

Do nothing? Blame there too, of course, for inaction. If the pol stands there and asserts -- not much to do, just let the med professionals get on with their work -- they will be pilloried for not doing enough.

Public 'dog-and-pony' shows that do little but "dress up" the promulgation of basic information -- repeated hourly to feed the 24-hour news cycle -- with a pol looking "calm" becomes the only rational response from the pol's end of things.

So yes, "truth" is the answer -- but the answer cannot suffice the public need for immediacy and totality in response.


On the bright side, the public panic over a moderately more deadly pandemic than is the annual pandemic of garden-variety influenza will probably save more us from more flu deaths than in many a previous year.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Admittedly we arent exactly seeing an overflow of candidness from our own Leaders about this.

Pretty much Mr. Barry's point, no? The worst case scenario of this being played out at the moment is Iran:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-seems/607663/

Don't know if all those figures are correct (there are a lot of debatable assumptions being used), but if infections run at even 10% or less of Mr. Wood's calculations, it's very, very, sobering.

THIS is what Mr. Barry was referring to when he said public officials that shirk their duty to the public, put lives at risk:

On February 21, Iran conducted the latest in a series of sham elections in which only government-selected candidates could run for office. To show disapproval, many Iranians refuse to vote, and as participation has dropped, the appearance of electoral legitimacy has dropped as well. Iran’s government told its people that the United States had hyped COVID-19 to suppress turnout, and Tehran vowed to punish anyone spreading rumors about a serious epidemic. Forty-three percent of Iranians voted, unaware that the outbreak had already begun. Quick action could have allowed quarantines to be put in place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

accidental double -- internet on this end. Apologies.