4 ms·

PPE is very hard. Military contamination rates for Decon are considered to be 25%. That number is just the projection for unit effectiveness after an event, b

PPE is very hard. Military contamination rates for Decon are considered to be 25%. That number is just the projection for unit effectiveness after an event, but it is rooted in the fact that even the most well trained people will still cut corners in decon. Mostly due to heat and fatigue. Overconfidence and repetition weariness can also be issues for those that decon too much.

look_lookatme 12y ago
> Military contamination rates for Decon are considered to be 25%. Just curious, do you have any citations for this?
- frankydp 12y ago
  There are no public citations that I could dig up. That number is the number used for planning with persistent agents. It varies quite a lot by agent. For further context look up the health worker mortality in West Africa due to Ebola. Even if those people are not all highly trained they are trained. The reality is that people simply cut corners, even when they know the risk, and the margin for error is obnoxiously low.
oskarth 12y ago
This is interesting. Are there any protocols or alternatives that you are aware of which push this % down to <<1%?
- JshWright 12y ago
  Remove humans from the equation? Humans make mistakes. Humans working in high stress situations are at a greater risk for making mistakes. Humans working in high stress situations, while wearing PPE that traps heat and moisture are at a tremendous risk for making mistakes.
  - PeterisP 12y ago
    This seems to be a viable target - for people in quarantine, if we can replace x% of actions that need to be done by humans with devices that can be sterilized, then that's a x% decrease in number of infections. We don't need any AI for this - remote control would work just as well. Can't we get a pair of robotic hands on wheels + Oculus Rift and controller gloves for a small fraction of what an MRI device costs?
    - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
      While I agree with you overall, this statement is just plain wrong from a statistical perspective: > if we can replace x% of actions that need to be done by humans with devices that can be sterilized, then that's a x% decrease in number of infections.
- frankydp 12y ago
  Don't contaminate humans, is the only one I know of. The Miasma theory is always an issue even for the most educated/trained. By that I mean what I can't see can't hurt me.
- 7952 12y ago
  A suitport[1] may be one approach [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport
  - flogic 12y ago
    That seems like a good idea.

look_lookatme 12y ago

> Military contamination rates for Decon are considered to be 25%. Just curious, do you have any citations for this?

frankydp 12y ago
There are no public citations that I could dig up. That number is the number used for planning with persistent agents. It varies quite a lot by agent. For further context look up the health worker mortality in West Africa due to Ebola. Even if those people are not all highly trained they are trained. The reality is that people simply cut corners, even when they know the risk, and the margin for error is obnoxiously low.

oskarth 12y ago

This is interesting. Are there any protocols or alternatives that you are aware of which push this % down to <<1%?

JshWright 12y ago
Remove humans from the equation? Humans make mistakes. Humans working in high stress situations are at a greater risk for making mistakes. Humans working in high stress situations, while wearing PPE that traps heat and moisture are at a tremendous risk for making mistakes.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  This seems to be a viable target - for people in quarantine, if we can replace x% of actions that need to be done by humans with devices that can be sterilized, then that's a x% decrease in number of infections. We don't need any AI for this - remote control would work just as well. Can't we get a pair of robotic hands on wheels + Oculus Rift and controller gloves for a small fraction of what an MRI device costs?
  - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
    While I agree with you overall, this statement is just plain wrong from a statistical perspective: > if we can replace x% of actions that need to be done by humans with devices that can be sterilized, then that's a x% decrease in number of infections.
frankydp 12y ago
Don't contaminate humans, is the only one I know of. The Miasma theory is always an issue even for the most educated/trained. By that I mean what I can't see can't hurt me.
7952 12y ago
A suitport[1] may be one approach [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport
- flogic 12y ago
  That seems like a good idea.