21

COVID-19 / Re: Why can't we re-use PPE?

« on: 30/04/2020 19:35:16 »

By the time you have resterilised a latex glove, both inside and outside, it's pretty useless as a glove, even if it isn't torn or punctured. Likewise single-use aprons: very difficult to sterilise with ethylene oxide, not washable, and distorted to uselessness by steam. You might collect them, remove the blood and gunk (by hand!)  and sterilise in bulk with a cobalt irradiator, but the machines are expensive and pretty well full of urgent items like syringes, and if you knowingly begin with infected material, you can't rely on batch sampling to assure product sterility - you have to test every one!

The point of a HEPA filter respirator is to trap infectious droplets. So if you have a washable (plastic) matrix, you end up with a large volume of infected water and a wet filter with a few viruses. So you dry the filter with moving air and disperse virus (a) into the public water system and (b) into the factory air. Bag, bin and burn, please.

Cloth gowns can be laundered but they are surprisingly fragile and have a hard life in the ward or theatre, so they need to be inspected before repacking to make sure there are no gaping holes or missing tapes - all very labor-intensive in an expensive sterile area, so may not be first choice, and in the case of high infectivity, at some point you will have a bin full of evil to store in the ward then move along a public corridor and unpack in the laundry. Bag, bin and burn paper if you want to save lives.

Hospitals do clean and re-use crutches but most are stolen or at least forgotten because the discharged patients don't know how to return them! Crutch hunting and wheelchair tracking is a major activity of the Red Cross! 

22

Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible

« on: 27/04/2020 18:27:00 »

To return to the subject of this thread

There is an underlying consensus that the bible is "accepted" as a collection of poetry, ethical principles, and historical records of dubious provenance and variable reliability, but generally consistent with the known history of the Middle East up to about 2000 years ago.

There is general disdain for Duffy's bizarre assertions and interpretations of some heavily curated and multiply retranslated aspects of the New Testament, which have nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

23

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 27/04/2020 12:56:39 »

The trolley problem is fairly typical of "problems" in philosophy. It's actually a hyperproblem because its statement is deliberately incomplete and evolves in response to each proposed solution.
We have to make decisions every day based on incomplete information, but in real life you rarely get the next bit of information in time to change your mind, which is why the question asked in a court of enquiry is always prefaced with "Given what you knew at the time, why did you....." Or to quote Sully "That is excellent flying. Now, knowing exactly what was going to happen, how many times did you simulate the emergency approach before you got it right?" "Thirteen". Roll credits.

The selfdriving "moral machine" is nonsense. Page One of the highway code says, in effect,  "never drive faster than you can stop in the distance you can see". Being wholly unemotional , never distracted and never tired, the selfdriving car is fully aware of its stopping distance so never has to make a choice. If a pedestrian chooses to run into the road in less than the stopping distance, that's his problem, not the car's.   

24

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 19/04/2020 10:21:08 »

When it's all over (if ever) and we take stock, we will indeed have a better appreciation of God. He is the evil bastard who created humans as food for parasites. Which is why human parasites evangelise.

25

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 19/04/2020 10:18:22 »

In a nutshell, surgical masks are intended to stop staff sneezing and spitting into open wounds. They do that very well. But operating theaters and clean wards have positive pressure filtered air, so in most cases it's reasonably safe to inhale, and the mask doesn't have to fit closely. 

Thus a surgical mask is a socially good thing to wear in public in the current circumstance, as you may be infectious without knowing it. But it is pretty useless for self protection in a crowd (like a tube train) or when handling a patient who is known to be infectious because it won't protect you against inhaled aerosols. A builder's dust mask is a better fit and is designed to prevent the inhalation of droplets and particles. A valve is useful in a high performance HEPA mask so you can exhale without steaming up your goggles! 

26

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 18/04/2020 15:24:25 »

All signs of ageing. Pity, but that's how Duffy's god designed us.

27

COVID-19 / Re: Coronavirus tests and death rate: cause and effect?

« on: 18/04/2020 15:00:36 »

Beware of mortality statistics!

"Cause of death" is a matter of opinion, even when you have a positive test for one causative factor*, and that opinion may itself be colored by local custom and practice (e.g. heart disease is far less often cited in France than in the rest of Europe, although diet and smoking habits wold appear to predispose towards it). If you don't test for COVID you can only report "respiratory failure" as anything else would be a guess.

Death is a matter of fact.

So the only universally valid estimate of the impact of COVID would be an unseasonal spike in the overall death rate. But I've also pointed out in another thread that short spikes in recorded deaths may be due to national holidays, civil service strikes, etc.

Best advice: always poke statistics with a sterilised barge pole.

*a detective told me that basic training includes "Unless the head is actually separated from the body, do not assume cause of death".

28

Just Chat! / Re: UK seasonal death trends

« on: 16/04/2020 04:21:17 »

I suspect the usual problem with death statistics: they are recorded, not actual deaths. The graph is very fine-grained, to the extent that you can pick out a specific day on each curve. The August dip seems to correspond exactly with a bank holiday. You have five days in which to register a death, so very few will be registered on the bank holiday when most young people (those more likely to be making the registration) are not at home.

This also explains the New Year dip, particularly as the registration period is 8 days in Scotland, where the whole country shuts down for Hogmanay. The Easter dip (BC's "financial year" dip) is broad and fuzzy, because the bank holiday is a variable feast and includes Friday. But I'm intrigued by the huge dip around 16 June 2019 - can anyone remember what happened? 

Despite the Grauniad's claim that "research shows a 6% increase in patient death rates", "Black Wednesday", when junior doctors start their clinical postings, shows no significant fluctuation at the beginning of August. IIRC there's plenty of hilarity among the nurses as the newbies try to find the toilet and the cafeteria, but not a lot of serious errors, and elective surgery is at a minimum during school holidays. It may be true that 6% more patients die in August, but that is because there are fewer patients overall in hospital, so deaths of patients are not diluted by minor illnesses and surgical recovery, but overall deaths remain normal.

29

COVID-19 / Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?

« on: 14/04/2020 22:59:30 »

According to my source, the quinine is irrelevant. It's the habitual exposure to corona viruses that produces herd immunity in the local population. It may even be evolutionary, like the sickle cell response offers protection against malaria.

30

COVID-19 / Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?

« on: 14/04/2020 16:52:51 »

Had an interesting discussion with a tropical agronomist today. He had been shown an anticorrelation between the incidence of malaria and COVID, which his source attributed to the use of chloroquinine. He pointed out that it was hardly used for the last umpteen years on grounds of ineffectiveness, but what was certain was the incidence and consumption of fruit bats in malarial areas.

Wikipedia (where else?) says

They are also of interest to those involved in public health as they are natural reservoirs of several viruses that can affect humans.

and indeed they shed all sorts of endemic coronaviruses, so it is likely that the human population has actually evolved or acquired immunity.

Given the enthusiasm of the green movement for turning East Anglia back into a malarial swamp, maybe the best long-term response is indeed to do nothing!

31

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 14/04/2020 09:41:33 »

There's certainly enough in your experience to warrant investigation, but none of it confirms the existence of an invisible third party. 

32

COVID-19 / Re: Is Lockdown Cost Effective?

« on: 13/04/2020 02:49:44 »

It's a weird mixture of causes and symptoms. Low fruit and veg may be associated with premature death in the UK, but not among the Inuit or Saami: the "five a day" slogan was actually invented not by any public health body, but the Californian Fruit Growers Association - and why not? My buddy Bob has as much right to make a living as any doctor! High blood pressure is a symptom that may be associated with early death, but suicide and murder are 100% effective, by definition.

As for economics, various government departments have "cost per life saved" targets, current minimum seems to be about £75,000. Some agencies spend a lot more, e.g. the US Environmental Protection Agency budget and regulations work out around $1,000,000,000 per life saved.

You might care to read https://lawofmarkets.com/2020/04/09/the-actual-cost-of-the-shut-down-is-300-million-per-life-saved 

33

Just Chat! / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?

« on: 12/04/2020 12:32:35 »

No problem. Define God and list one experimentally verifiable quality or quantity that is uniquely possessed or demonstrated by it, to the extent that you can predict the outcome of that experiment and not ascribe it to any other cause. Otherwise, you preachin' to the choir, brother!

34

Technology / Re: Pressurizing using gravity

« on: 11/04/2020 22:45:50 »

Except it doesn't fall freely for 25 ft and crash into a tiny block of air. Free fall at 32 ft/sec certainly gives you 40 ft/sec² after a 25 ft drop but the pressure is increasing throughout the travel, so the weight is opposed by a steadily increasing force. That makes quite an interesting equation of motion. Fortunately (it's been a long day!) the question only asked for the equilibrium solution, and I'll grant you that it depends on psia or psig.

I recall being taught how to assess candidates for National Vocational Qualifications. We were shown a problem of estimating the cost of paving an annular path around a fountain, and a number of student answers. Some gave an incorrect formula for the area of an annulus, some got it right but made arithmetic errors, but the candidate who got full marks just wrote  "£650 + VAT", which was what the customer wanted to know. 

35

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 11/04/2020 00:33:35 »

If you believe the bible, you would believe his friends called him "rabbi". No rabbi was ever criticised for being mainstream. But it's pretty clear you haven't read the bible, so I can't criticise you for not understanding it.

Stay clear of religion and lead a good life, my friend. Farewell.

36

Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible

« on: 10/04/2020 23:53:05 »

effrey go find alan. come back when he and i are through.

We are through. You have descended into gibberish. For all I know, you may even be a Republican, and thus beneath contempt.

37

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 10/04/2020 17:56:04 »

His buddies also called him GOD

citation needed, particularly as none of the current bible was written by anyone who knew him.

38

Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible

« on: 09/04/2020 10:36:25 »

upon what do you rely to inform how you treat other people?

Do as you would be done by. Let the punishment fit the crime. The greatest happiness for the greatest number. Primum non nocere. These are the bases of every legal system we call "civilised".

The solution doesn't have to be easy or obvious - I spend a day every month discussing the ethics of half a dozen medical research projects with all sorts of experts and laymen. It won't be found in a book of fairy tales.

39

Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible

« on: 09/04/2020 08:54:32 »

burning innocent people alive,

Yes. Part of the rich history of Christianity (Bruno, Tyndale (though they had the decency to strangle him first), Jeanne d'Arc, and too many witches to name here). And that's just victims within the faith. 

But your co-religionists can't take credit for all the rest of your silly rant.

40

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 08/04/2020 23:06:24 »

In Jewish law, it was punishable by death to get on somebody's nerves, correct?

No. No occupying power has ever ceded the death sentence to its subjects. Crucifixion was a Roman execution - the only permitted biblical method is stoning. You should study the bible.