4 ms·
This is interesting. Are there any protocols or alternatives that you are aware of which push this % down to <<1%?
by 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 agoRemove 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 agoThis 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 agoWhile 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 agoDon'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 agoA suitport[1] may be one approach [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitport
- flogic 12y agoThat seems like a good idea.