3 ms·
While I'm certain it sounds bad to the people who would find this icky, there is zero in this article about the risk. Yes, the word "risk" is used. But the Os
by forgottenpass 9y ago
While I'm certain it sounds bad to the people who would find this icky, there is zero in this article about the risk.
Yes, the word "risk" is used. But the Osterholm quote is not a medical risk analysis. To decide what, if anything, should be done differently, it is necessary to both quantify the risk, and decide what level of risk the public finds tolerable for convention centers.
I would be surprised if the risk of infectious disease from cadavers in the convention center is as high as the risk of infectious disease when the convention center is packed to capacity with germ-carrying people there to watch power point presentations.
- DoreenMichele 9y agoGerm carrying people have functioning immune systems. Cadavers do not. They are just laying there rotting, like a giant Petri dish with no lid in which a mix of multiple unnamed microbes have been bred and are now running wild.
- phren0logy 9y agoThis is incorrect, they are heavily preserved.
- DoreenMichele 9y agoIt isn't like that had not occurred to me. But Superbugs keep adapting to antibiotics etc. I am skeptical of the idea that dunking dead bodies in chemicals is anywhere near as effective as a living immune system. Living microbes seem to adapt if all they are faced with is poison of some sort. In fact, petrochemical spills can be remediated with an injection of microbes that eat petrochemicals.
- bastawhiz 9y agoIf we don't know the risk of something, especially if there is the possibility of serious illness, then we should stop doing it until we do know the risk. After all, it's not like convention centers are the only place where these things can be held. Imagine the headlines: "Disney tourists contract _______ because doctors did not know the risks of bringing dead bodies into convention center"