6 million Italians should be in home quarantine, only a fraction of them because they tested positive. Most of them are there because tests are few and slow.
Another part of the problem is that enforcing the quarantine & working through the tests backlog is cheaper, easier, and more effective when there are few cases than when there are a lot,
But one would also need the will, capability, and wisdom to do so when it seems less urgent
(I do not know how the scientific committee got to the 3M number, it’s probably a very rough estimate, but I know anecdotally that the problem indeed exists.)
Another part of the problem is that the total number of “6 million people who should be in home quarantine” might include close contacts of people who tested positive but have not been notified yet.
We have 10M people who are on job subsidies scheme but cannot hire 20k tracers.
(So the violators might not know they are violating home quarantine because contact travers are few and slow to notify people that their contact tested positive)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
MASKS WORK EVEN IF THE VIRUS IS SMALLER THAN THE HOLES IN THE FABRIC
As a first effect, the virus bounces on the fibers. That's enough to decrease the distance at which it "jumps out". It might even get some of the particles to stuck to the fibers.
(thread, 1/N)
2/ Second, N95 masks also have electrostatic charges that capture particles even if they are smaller than the holes in the fabric.
3/ Third, masks would work even if the virus passed fully through.
They reduce the distance at which it travels after, say, a sneeze. It's as if they introduced additional distance between people.
Moreover, they work both on the way out and on the way in.
1/ They don't fully protect you from virus in the air.
Yes, but their point is to prevent as much virus as possible from getting in the air in the first place.
(thread)
2/ There is this Randomized Control Trial I see posted on Twitter which allegedly shows that face masks do not work.
That trial shows that face masks do not protect doctors from patients *that do not wear face masks*.
Such studies do not demonstrate that face masks don't work.
3/ Paradoxically, the more you believe that someone wearing face masks is only partially protected, the more you should want everyone to wear them, so that there is less virus in the air.
In yesterday's tweet, I was critical of scientific institutions endorsing specific parties.
Here is an example of why.
There is no such thing as "the scientific party" or "the anti-scientific one" – not if by science we intend real science, rather than a politicized consensus.
IMHO there's too much focus on who governs the political structure and too little attention to whether:
- The structure is good
- It provides good incentives
- It filters bad members
- The downside of bad decisions is capped
- It provides longevity to the common good or to itself
(I don't live in the US and this was not intended to be a reflection on the US; I merely stumbled on the quoted thread and it made me think. Many other countries will find that, if they remove the words and look at the actions, "scientific parties" aren't that scientific at all.)
Why is it important to care about small HSE violations in manufacturing companies?
Shouldn't we only care about injuries & deaths?
Only if we want the company to fail and workers to die.
(thread)
2/ Yesterday, I pointed out that a famous automotive company has a lot of OSHA violations. The most common response I got is that those relate to meaningless violations.
Perhaps. But only in a theoretical ideal world, meaningless violations are unrelated to incidents.
3/ In the real world, incidents *approximately* follow a pyramid as the below one (image from my book gum.co/opexbook).
The more "meaningless violations" a company has, the more a big incident is waiting to happen.
2/ One reason is that hiring inside is Lindier than hiring remote – not from a historical perspective, but (see below) for the range of circumstances that must be true and must hold true over time for remote hiring to be effective vs in-house.
3/ (Yes, there are good examples of hiring remote, but I suspect there's a lot of survivorship bias in there. Also, it's possible that you hire a better-than-internal remote talent and still lose the long-term game due to externalities such as morale hits or cultural problems.)