[Easy to discuss, harder to put to text. Will update later. but synthesized from ongoing conversations, things posted on this blog and principals of reason. -rws]
A Framework of Thinking
As part of the discussion of reducing risk, it is advised to have some manner in which risk is quantified and what is an acceptable amount of risk to incur. The acceptable amount of risk may vary from individual to individual. What follows is one possible example of quantifying risk.
1) Risk Index (Ri)
Based on available science and reasoning, assign numeric risk value to respective scenarios. This number might be on a scale of 0-100. Using an ATM might be a 5, talking with a person two feet away might be a 30.
2) Risk Multiplier (M)
This numeric is to quantify increased risk due to increases in or contact points or person. For example if talking with a person has a Risk Index of 30 then talking with 3 people might be M*Ri or in this case a value of 90.
3) Risk duration/time. (T)
This might be represented by the number of minutes exposed to or involved in the risk scenario.
4) Raw Risk Value. (Rv)
Recognize that actual risk is a function of time exposure/duration (T) and the Risk Index (Ri) and Risk Multiplier (M). In the absence of other information presume. Rv=T*M*Ri
5) Risk Reduction/Mitigation Factor (Mf)
This number is to represent the effectiveness of mitigation efforts. For example a cloth mask that has 30% effectiveness in reducing aerosol contaminants, would equate to a 0.70 risk reduction/mitigation factor.
6) Risk Value (Rv)
For each scenarios the total Risk Value would be Rv = Mf*Rv
Going back to the three person meeting, this model would generate the following figures below:
2 hours duration
Rv 10800 without mask
Rv 7560 with mask
1 hour duration
Rv 5400 without mask
Rv 3780 with mask
Although this particular risk model is an example, it illustrates that with proper modeling it might be understood that reducing time of an event could have more positive impact on risk reduction than the mitigation from wearing of masks. This is an argument for the need to have a functional risk assessment model so that proper choices can be made.
7) Total Commutative Risk (Tcr)
This would represent the total period’s (day’s) worth of Risk. Essentially a summation of the days individual assortments of Risk Values (Rv) computed as indicated above. This figure would represent a total cumulative numeric of the days risks, including duration, quantity, and mitigation, etc. Tcr = ΣRv
In order to effectively reduce Total Cumulative Risk, one must have some framework on how risk is quantified, and what factors might mitigate or reduce risks. There may be cases where avoidance or elimination is the only way to drive the Total Cumulative Risk to an acceptable level. The focus should not be on the optics of Risk Reduction but instead on the actual reduction of Total Cumulative Risk. Having some model to represent Total Cumulative Risk may assist in this effort. A 30% reduction in an large risk may be unacceptable and best resolved by avoidance, a 90% reduction in an insignificant risk may be meaningless and waste resources that are best applied elsewhere. The costs, risks, and problems of mitigation efforts should be weighed against the results of mitigation efforts and their alternatives.
Concepts - Individual Choice
Reduce number of touch points.
Reduce number of social interactions.
Reduce occurrence of being in shared airspace.
Reduce duration of suspect events or circumstance.
Reduce occurrence of suspect circumstance.
Mitigate the above as necessary, appropriate and most effective:
sunglasses can be detrimental in the dark.
pool arm-floaties are of little use while hiking (and can cause chaffing).
Quarantine for safety if appropriate.
Quarantine to reduce uncertainty if appropriate.
Sanitize contact points (wash your hands not your elbows, or doorknobs).
Pursue environment and circumstance known to have less risk.
Pursue good health and a strong immune system.
Life in 3-D
Density
Distance
Duration
Evaluation of Risk Reduction Efforts
Items of consideration: Existing Risk Factor, Risk Reduction/Mitigation Factor (effectiveness), Ease of implementation, Cost, etc.
[this text is a work in progress. -rws]
Things Practiced Implement / Reasoning/ Sustainability
2020 January (got an early start on efforts, because of December cold/flu concerns)
Practice: Began effort to the break habit of touching face, eyes, mouth, nose.
Reason: Easy to implement. Science clearly indicated common infection path.
Sustainability: Can do this long term. No need to stop.
Comments:
2020 February
Practice: Began decontamination practices between appointments and activities. Liberal use of Isopropyl Alcohol (91%), and keeping separate materials (fresh/used cleaning cloths, items picked up/delivered, etc) to avoid cross contamination. Made conscious decision to not wear gloves as consider frequent decontamination of hands more effective and having less detrimental effect than wearing gloves.
Reason: Easy to implement. Science supported Isopropyl as a superior decontaminate.
Sustainability: Can do this long term. No need to stop.
2020 March
Practice: Began recording daily temperature reading (had only previously be spot checking and not recording).
Reason: Easy to implement. Science indicated even a mild infection has high correlation to an elevated temperature.
Sustainability: Can do this long term. No need to stop.
Comments:
2020 April
2020 May
2020 June
2020 July
2020 August
2020 September
Would make sense to incorporate into the above external conditions.
re:
https://www.isitzen.com/blog/2021/2/weather-impact-on-airborne-coronavirus-survival-physics-of-fluids
2020 October
2020 November
2020 December
2021 January
2021 February
2021 March
2021 April
2021 May
2021 June
2021 July
2021 August
2021 September
Here we are, marking what might be called 39th bi-monthly celebration of flattening the curve. Over a year since this original posting, yet still with on-going mandates based more on optics and bad data models then actual science.
[work in progress. expanding as time permits. -rws]
