My company recently adopted SecureMail, SecureHub and the other Citrix mobile stuff, it seems to sandbox itself from the rest of the system pretty well. It controls which apps you can cut-n-paste between or share links to for example. I think it's uses MDM under the hood to manage data sharing and permissions.
> So far, all the Covid19 stats out of China proofed to be fake
Can you provide a source on that? The only "proof" I have seen people confident of is speculation based on the urns delivered to funeral homes - which IMO can be attributed to non-Covid-19 related deaths continuing during the lockdown.
> So far, all the Covid19 stats out of China proofed to be fake.
Citation needed. Which numbers have been proved to be incorrect? So far, all I've seen is everyone saying the equivalent of "it's China so they must be lying".
If you ignore CAC, Zapier isn’t a company that is going to lose any money per new premium customer. And we know this since they offer a free version with the premium version only having a few extra features. If they offered a year it would be one thing but 3 months means that for 75% of the rest of the Coronavirus period the small business will be paying them.
I think it’s more than fine as long as the intent is stated as “helping you or your business get through this difficult time”. I’ve seen some businesses where the messaging reads like they’re mocking the tragedy or cashing in on the opportunity which will turn people off real quickly.
Think of GameStop calling themselves an essential business in states on mandatory lockdown... not great PR.
Any time a company growth scheme is "get this product implemented in an emotional rush, so it replaces a specific process, in a way thats hard to reverse" without allowing time to plan, they are taking advantage of the consumer.
Or like the box.com model with a "install this behind your companies back, and once enough of you reach a critical mass where its painful to undo, they wont be able to ignore it anymore, and the ramifications will be their problem not yours."
I upvoted this just because of the nature.com link - but after I actually read it, I am disapointed. Summary:
Q: Why does the coronavirus spread so easily between people?
A: We don't know yet
The results presented not verified by experiments yet.
"But some researchers are cautious about overstating the role of the activation site in helping the coronavirus to spread more easily. “We don’t know if this is going to be a big deal or not,” says Jason McLellan, a structural biologist at the University of Texas at Austin"
That's a gross oversimplification of the article. They have identified proteins and associated host-cell enzymes and can postulate why this combination would result in greater spread (and additionally why other organs are affected).
It's really not hard to grasp why it would spread quickly. This virus harbors in the respiratory system of an infected patient. The viral infection invades cells and releases more of the virus.
This is so contagious because:
1. Everyone breaths in nearly 8000 liters of air each day
2. Virus are so small that they stay suspended in air for a while, some estimates are 30min (think how smoke stays afloat)
Article lists multiple leading experts working round the clock on this, all saying they're not sure why the virus is so contagious.
But some random person of uncertain credentials says "It's really not hard to grasp why it would spread quickly".
If you have some kind of expert credentials with serious evidence, then it would be great to hear it. Otherwise your opinions are just unhelpful, potentially dangerous noise - and the internet has no shortage of those already.
> Authoritative expert opinions that require belief are worse and more dangerous than a random person's honest analysis
Really? Believing multiple named doctors' opinions from a well-known journalistic source on a technical issue is more dangerous than believing a random stranger who I know nothing about other than their username? On the balance of risks, I'll take the doctors, thanks.
What they're trying to figure out is how it spreads so quickly when other viruses of the same family do not. Also this is an RNA virus (like most viruses), and RNA is not a stable molecule, especially compared to DNA. The ability of the virus to attach to and invade cells is also not an absolute. Our adaptive immune system can and does recognize the virus as a threat. What you flippantly described as "not hard to understand" is actually very hard to understand for the domain experts actually working in this field..
Your points suggest that every respiratory virus should be highly contagious, but don't explain why this one is more contagious than other similar viruses.
Yes, all good conjecture that is likely accurate, but wildly important to not only proceed based on these assumptions and to get definitive proof of the mechanisms
Why is there so much general confidence warmer temps will reduce spread? Is it really warm temps = more daylight = more UV bouncing around breaking up virus particles in the air? Does it make any difference at all for the majority of folks who spend almost all waking hours inside?
I think there's probably an aspect of wishful thinking, and I certainly wouldn't say that there's anything like general confidence in the idea. Actually, I've only heard this stated as fact by politicians and similar; experts are mostly WAY more cautious about it.
it is because the warmer weather is what stopped SARS-COV in 2002 from spreading this far. the western world was lucky in that ignoring it the first time was an okay strategy. SARS-COV-2 is making its way around the globe right now and hopefully has the same limitations or this may get out of control. ignoring is the most dangerous option at this point. please watch this video by 3blue1brown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kas0tIxDvrg a math professor in the US about the situation.
But maybe the main reason that SARS died out by the summer was not primarily because of the temperature but had more to do with the fact that it wasn't as nearly contagious and they were able to contain it with social distancing?
I don't know if there is such confidence among specialists, but among non specialists the arguments I have heard are based on assumed similarities with the common flu. These arguments may or may not apply , and there is still disagreement and unanswered questions on why the flu is seasonal:
I believe its something along the lines that when there is more moister in the air, the water droplets grab the floating particles and fall to the ground. Thus higher humidity often slows the impact of airborne virus, hence we have a flu season.
85 cases in Australia. And how many of those are imported?
In a binary sense, yes it “is spreading”. Even an R0 of 0.1 is “spreading”. But there is hardly enough data to say it is spreading widely in Australia.
The virus spread in summer/tropical vs winter/non-tropical regions is orders of magnitude different. But this is also not definitively causal. Just extremely highly correlated.
Yup, the counter to it is India. With almost all of the 43 cases imported even after more than 17000 tests seem to indicate that it's not spreading there (it could be a variety of factors including under-testing).
There does seem to be some secondary spread in Australia however this seems to be from close contact with people who have been overseas. We are a little late to the game having established effective screening and information sharing early On. There is a expectation that the next few weeks will show a marked increase in community spread.
Well, to be fair, its not meant to be a textbook or a journal article where being super explicit matters much more. It's a fun article for laypeople like us.
You linked to the estimate of one scientist. It's stretching things to say "scientific agreement" with the implication that there's a consensus in the narrow band of 60-70% based on a data set of one.
I've seen estimates quite a bit lower than that, like 20%.
Although it is disturbing that 20% is about the lowest estimate I can recall seeing. I don't believe there are many (or any) scientists saying this will be a minor blip that only infects 1% or fewer. And 20% would be devastating, let alone 60-70%.
Sources? It seems far too early and there isn't enough reliable observational data, much less scientific trial data, available for broad "scientific agreement".
Although obviously the accuracy of China's data is in question, it's promising that they were able to get the reproduction rate below 1 pretty quickly. And within Wuhan itself the spreading seems to have slowed with something like 0.6% of the population of 11 million infected.
Not to mention in China outside of Wuhan/Hubei, which have conditions much more similar to most of the rest of the world in having some advanced warning of the virus, the spread seems also to have slowed down at a much much lower infection rate.
Based on this information it's not clear to me where the "40-70% of the world getting infected" idea is coming from, though I've seen a few headlines reporting that too.
Wuhan is your reference? China too? Aren't they putting pretty severe quarantine in Wuhan? Aren't their quarantine outside of Wuhan still quite strong?
The Diamond Princess had a quarantine, and yet the infection reached 706 peoples, in a boat with 3711 peoples. Sure that's "only" 20%, but that seems to me like 40% isn't that far out if we are considering that it's hard to quarantine a whole country.
The timeframe is important too, as long as we don't have developed any vaccine, the only way to develop immunity is by being infected... thus if the virus spread that easily, it's only a question of when will we reach 40-70%, not if.
Yeah I’m in Beijing now and there’s no way most of the world could implement this kind of quarantine. I can’t leave or come back home without presenting a special card at the gate of my apartment complex.
But it’s working, and at this point I’d rather be here than in many other countries.
Professor Christian Drosten from the Charite clinic in Berlin, Germany, estimates the virus could infect up to 70 percent of the world or 5.2 billion people.
He said: “Presumably between 60 and 70 percent of the people will get infected but we don’t know in what timeframe.
“It can be two years or even longer. It will be more problematic if the infections occur in a short amount of time.
“That is why authorities are doing everything to recognise the origin of infections and slow down any further spread of the infection.”
According to Professor Drosten, the coronavirus epidemic could even match the Asian flu pandemic of 1957 and the 1968 flu pandemic, which began in Hong Kong.
In the former case, the Asian flu is estimated to have killed between one and two million people.
Professor Drosten said: “If the whole pandemic process lasts two years, we will manage.
“If it is only a year, it will be much more difficult because many more cases will occur all at the same time.
“The necessary number of beds for patients requiring intensive care unit therapy is difficult to predict.
Presumably between 60 and 70 percent of the people will get infected
Professor Christian Drosten, Charite clinic
“If we don’t do anything now, they may not be enough.”
It's important to know where the 60-70% number comes from. He's basing it off of the evidence that the virus spreads at a ratio of 1:3. So every infected will spread it to 3 others and a pandemonium will only last as long as it can spread to >1 other person. Therefore, if 2/3 (66%) of the population is infected (hence immune), the virus won't be a pandemonium anymore. He's also assuming that nearly everyone will be infected at some point in time.
On the other hand... OCR is meanwhile so good that it can be used for many PDF text extraction projects. So often there is no longer the need to bother with PDF internals, just screenshot the PDF document and parse it. A free pdf ocr service is for example ocr.space.
The amount of up- and downvoting on anything China related feels insane. I wish someone at Hackernews will write a blog post about this some day (accounts, IP addresses, and whatever other data they have). From a casual reader perspective, I feel I have not seen this pattern on other controversial topics that sometimes show up here, e. g. gun control.
I should say the first dozen(s) of cases in the same city. Hong Kong is past ten. I don't think any city in the EU or US is approaching that.
Noting the Chinese population doesn't believe their government and estimates the numbers of infected to be at least 10 times whatever is reported.
Also noting, Hong Kong was already in civil war right before the epidemic, remember it was being annexed by China. That's regular protests, transports/tubes/airports periodically closed and shops unable to resupply, so not everything is attributable to the virus.
> Also noting, Hong Kong was already in civil war right before the epidemic, remember it was being annexed by China.
I've been in countries at civil war (or coming out of a civil war). Hong Kong is not (yet) in a state of civil war. There's widespread civil unrest, which is often a precursor to civil war, but it's not there yet, by a long shot.
Also, Hong Kong was annexed by China back in 1997. Understandably, Hong Kong is chafing under some of the laws China is imposing, and requirements for extradition to the mainland, but the annexation was done several decades ago.
