4 ms·
>although the US government isn't actually telling us to... yet? But that's the alternative those who who think the UK's plan is madness are suggesting, right?
by treis 7y ago
>although the US government isn't actually telling us to... yet? But that's the alternative those who who think the UK's plan is madness are suggesting, right? Asking everyone to withdraw from society for months?
It doesn't take that much to contain something like this. In no particular order:
(1) Temperature checks outside all major gathering places. Shops, subways, offices, etc. If you're running a fever you don't get in.
(2) Hand sanitizer at the entrance/exit of all major gathering places. Clean your hands before you go in and clean them when you come out. Don't clean them you don't get in.
(3) Wear masks everywhere in major gathering places. No mask, no entry.
(4) Widespread testing and contact tracing for those who have tested positive.
I agree that the West in general is handling this as dumb as possible. Shutting everything down is pointless if you don't use the respite to enact public health measures.
- Taek 7y agoIt's estimated that as many as 20% of the infected are asymptomatic, including no fever. A lot of your suggestions would fail to contain the virus. I do believe that widespread testing and tracing would be effective. Given that we don't yet have access to the scale of testing that is required to maintain public health, I think an immediate quarantine is the only way to save lives.
- treis 7y ago>t's estimated that as many as 20% of the infected are asymptomatic, including no fever. A lot of your suggestions would fail to contain the virus. We don't need to stop 100% of the transmissions. Right now, on average, an infected person will pass it on to 2-3 people. The goal is to get that to below 1 and eventually it will fizzle out. I'm not quite sure what's so controversial about my post. It's what countries in Asia have done and they've all contained the spread.
- lonelappde 7y agoIf every place does temperature checks, how many will do it with a poor protocol that spreads virus?
- nightfly 7y agoI've been trying for 3 weeks to get _a_ 8oz bottle of hand sanitizer. Good luck getting number 2 happening.
- kn100 7y agoDo what I did. eBay isopropyl alcohol and some vegetable glycerin. Should cost you less than 10GBP per litre and mix at a 70/30 ratio.
- mrob 7y ago30% glycerol seems very high. The WHO publishes recipes for hand sanitizers with only 1.45% glycerol by volume: https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Guide_to_Local_Production.pdf
- kragen 7y agoGlycerin is not a very good thickening agent for this purpose, but if it's the only one you're using, you're going to need more than 1.45% of it.
- kragen 7y agoManufacturing a hundred thousand 8-ounce bottles of hand sanitizer might be considerably easier than a hundred thousand times as difficult as getting a single one. I mean, have you tried distilling alcohol from fermented mash and mixing it with mucilage?
- xorcist 7y agoGiven the choice between hand sanitizer and soap, always go for the soap. It is more effective against viruses.
- nightfly 7y agoI wash with soap and water wherever I can. I want sanitizer for when I'm getting in the car after leaving stores and stuff.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]