h a l f b a k e r yExpensive, difficult, slightly dangerous, not particularly effective... I'm on a roll.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is going to take a bit of planning but...
Pick one week, preferably in 2018 (when there's not
much
scheduled to happen). During that week, no human
being
is allowed to be within 100 metres of any other.
Result: any short-term, human-specific infectious
diseases
will be eradicated
in one swell foop.
Problems:
1) I'm not sure how many human-specific infectious
diseases there are that will run their course in a week.
2) Moving everyone 100m apart would put many UK
residents
in the sea.
3) This would be hard on babies, people in critical care
and
conjoined twins. The isolation period would have to be
extended to two weeks for pairs of people, three for
triples and so forth.
reddit /askscience: "If everyone stayed in their house for a week, would we wipe out the common cold? "
http://www.reddit.c...r_house_for_a_week/
Seems unlikely. [tatterdemalion, Sep 29 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Dear god, some fool bunned this while I was editing. |
|
| |
Love it. I mean it would destroy the world's economy but... |
|
| |
//it would destroy the world's economy but..// |
|
| |
Not necessarily. There would be a short-term boost
in the sales of tinned foods, electric back-scratchers
and pornography. This would potentially offset the
brief dip in sales of condoms, light sabres and
tandems. |
|
| |
Haven't we done this before? |
|
| |
// would put many UK residents in the sea. // |
|
| |
Do we get to choose which ones? |
|
| |
Might I be able to reserve the week of April 31st? |
|
| |
Personally you get my vote. I think it's a great idea and I live in a very small very remote community so it'd be easy for me to manage - I'd just drive for 30 minutes and roll the swag out under a tree, probably be 5km from the nearest soul. |
|
| |
But I've definitely seen this on here before; it's something I've spoken about to friends from time to time. I've got a niggling feeling it was a [UB] post, or maybe he just anno'd it heavily. |
|
| |
That's what I always say about pamphlets. |
|
| |
//some fool// sp. "prescient enlightened person" |
|
| |
Excellent idea - as long as I get to stay where I am
and everyone else in the world moves. |
|
| |
// it has, indeed, been proposed as a 'new' idea here
before.// Ah. And the link is... |
|
| |
"Boy, it sure has been quiet here in the delivery room this week..." |
|
| |
Pretty sure this wouldn't work. To many of the diseases it
should get have asymptomatic carriers. |
|
| |
//To many of the diseases it should get have
asymptomatic carriers.// I think you may have been
trying to noun a verb there. But you're probably
right - anyone know how long a cold virus can loiter?
(Note: even the asymptomatic carriers will, of
course, be quaranteened in this scheme.) |
|
| |
read "it should get" as "the quarantine should eliminate" and it works better. The phrasing made perfect sense in my head. |
|
| |
oh, that makes much more lack of sense now. |
|
| |
What [what] what? </goons> |
|
| |
"You silly twisted boy, you !" |
|
| |