“I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing” • Hacker News Board

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#371

Post by tsimionescu » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

notacoward wrote: post #369

simiones wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, maybe not, but I definitely wouldn't change gloves every five minutes. Squirting some hand sanitizer after every client in retail doesn't seem as onerous. And definitely if my nose itches, I would rather squirt some hand sanitizer, clean my hands, and scratch it; rather than take off my gloves, scratch my nose, than put on new gloves.

If you were wearing gloves you wouldn't need to change every five minutes. Alcohol-sanitizer fixation is not the route to public health.

I would have to change gloves every time I want to touch my face. And if I am to avoid spreading between customers, I would have to change my gloves after every customer (or wash/sanitize my hands).

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#372

Post by notacoward » Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

simiones wrote: post #299

pas wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We still don't know how long it lives on clothing. On doorknobs, plastic, stainless steel it can live for 72 hours, yes. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/14/8116090...

Fair enough, but I wouldn't assume the difference goes from 72 hours to 3 between different inert surfaces.

That's an entirely normal range.

https://www.chemistryviews.org/details/news/10608438/How_Lon...

"The viruses remained detectable for up to 4 hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard, and up to 3 days on plastic and stainless steel."

Different surfaces are, well, different.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#373

Post by TuringTest » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 2:07 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #339

dragonwriter wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not without cost, you lose the additional income you'd get from working. People making $1,000/month expend extra effort to make more than that when the effort to make $1,000/month is nonzero, so I have no problem thinking people with any kind of opportunity will do so when the effort to make $1,000/month is zero, as they will have a lot more available unexpended effort.

In a normal situation this is true. In situation described above only the essentials are being produced by the economy and everyone gets essentials and nobody producing non-essentials works. Having more money isn't useful in this situation. You already get the essentials and can't buy non-essentials because they aren't being produced.

You assume non-essentials wouldn't be created. Instead, they could be created by people who enjoy creating them - but they would be much more influenced by what they like, not necessarily what people demand.