Why would it have been better to turn back on the nuclear plant? What would be the specific advantages of nuclear plant back in operation versus battery project realisation? Or would battery + reactivated plant be the best overall solution?
I am looking for additional best practices regarding the development of data and ML based products. Would be grateful for any pointers in this direction.
I would consider a blood test every couple of years a default practice among GPs in Switzerland. Among other measures that fall under the "prevention is better than treatment" scheme such as free skin cancer screening or colon cancer screening from a certain age.
I find the described reaction of your doctor to be out of the ordinary, and with relation to the described accusation unacceptable.
Thanks. I ended up doing exactly what you said for other reasons (Covid). Now I have what is called telemedicine where I call some number where I describe my symptoms and I might get a prescription right away or some tests. I did it to minimize the interaction with people that have an higher chance of having covid due to their line of work.
As far as I know, they did not communicate an overall strategy or comprehensive action plan. The basis of this thread are a series of tweets making assumptions about what the government strategy could be (given a lack of measures taken as a basis).
I do not understand how not communicating a comprehensive action plan is meant to be the harder choice ("a decision many other countries [...] not able to make") when contrasted with messures such as declaring national emergencies and widespread lockdowns of public life.
They held a press conference live streamed on YouTube where the PM and the two chief scientific advisors answered questions and explained their strategy for nearly an hour. The answer to one question alone took over ten minutes. You may not be aware of their communication about their strategy but it's on YouTube waiting for you.
That hour long press conference, that I’ve seen live, can be condensed in don’t do anything at all, let’s get 60% of the population infected so we’ll have herd immunity.
The lockdown as implemented by Italy and France aims at slowing down the spreading of the virus. It is not meant as a strategy to overcome the virus. It is meant to flatten the curve of the exponential growth of infection to minimize overloading the health system and to provide more time for preparation and for the acquisition of best practices regarding the situation. There is no disillusion that this might somehow stop the virus. The expected total infected percentage of population, with lockdowns is still in the range of 50-60%. Italy went into lockdown on March 9th when # of new cases reached 1791 and total deaths was 463. This does not seem to qualify as a very drastic early lockdown, as stated by parent.
Given everything we know regarding exponential spread, the high percentage of cases requiring icu treatment, and the mortality rate, I fail to see how the absence of any measures to mitigate the spreading of the virus makes sense.
The assumption that there are only two viable strategies, lockdown & no measures, is a plain wrong oversimplification. There is a wide range of intermediary steps that can be taken in between to attempt to slow down the virus.
Attempting to minimize the degree of overload on the health system by applying such measures in a coordinated fashion is meant to reduce casualties caused by system overload.
Those are good points. Because Italy was hit hardest first they had very little time to prepare. The UK has had about an extra month, which puts us in a different strategic position, so we might be able to afford an approach not viable for Italy.
But the response will be less pronounced here with knowledge, self isolation and a lack of kissing when greeting. A month is probably a better guess than 2 weeks, but not a single person knows is rather the point...
reply