Risk Assessment Form 3: Fill & Download for Free

The worst case is that it runs through the entire population of the world, hopefully maintaining its 2% mortality rate. The current thinking is that it's the old, the infirm, and the very young are most at risk for that 2%. That would mean that roughly a hundred and fifty million people would die, leaving a roughly healthier, younger population in its wake of the 7.38 billion survivors.But that scenario implies that all the humans on the planet just let themselves get infected and do nothing to prevent it, and the disease maintains its virulence. That's not at all likely, and my proof is you reading this. You're interested in this virus and you are going to do whatever it takes to minimise your exposure. (Wash your hands..and no quick splash: 30 seconds of vigorous washing.) The other proof is all the societal responses throughout the world with the attempts to isolate people who are sick and care for them until the disease runs its course. Also different populations have different responses. Four people got sick in Germany from a business traveler from China and they suffered only very mild symptoms. From an evolutionary perspective, a virus that kills its host isn’t very successful in spreading itself.It's quite possible that this particular coronavirus will just burn itself out. Disease outbreaks are a bit like fires. The virus is the flame. Susceptible people are the fuel. Eventually, a fire burns itself out if it runs out of kindling. A virus outbreak will end when it stops finding susceptible people to infect.There’s a third scenario about how this outbreak ends. That it doesn’t. How does this coronavirus outbreak end?This has happened before. In 2009, a new strain of the H1N1 flu virus encircled the globe in a pandemic. But, “after a while it became a part of our normal repertoire of what might come up each flu season,” Mina says.Adalja explains there are now four coronavirus strains that commonly infect humans as common colds or pneumonia. It’s possible that this virus becomes the fifth — and like the flu, it could come and go with the seasons. Possibly, it could become a seasonal virus in China. Or, it could, like the flu, envelop the whole world.Bad, but far from the end of the world.***edit 3/8/2020**Now that we're a bit more experienced on covid-19, we have more accurate data on mortality rates.South Korea, which probably has the most accurate data given its aggressive testing regime, reports 50 deaths from 7,313 infections, an overall mortality rate of 0.68%. We also know now that mortality rates vary widely by age. Down below the age of 40 years old, mortality rate is .4 to .2 %, but is probably much much lower because of the very large number of undiagnosed cases that are asymptomatic or so mild that the infected person takes no action to get medical help. Older and sicker is where the mortality rate is much higher. Again, there may be a significant number of undiagnosed cases from 60 all the way up to 80 years old. The first data from China, which encompasses only those that sought out medical help and got diagnosed, was as high as 15%.The key to stopping or even or just flattening out the infection rate of covid-19, is good personal hygiene, and practicing social distancing. This is especially true for the older folks, who are largely retired, and have the ability to practice a significant amount of social distancing without there being a lot of economic collateral damage. Younger generations, active in the workforce, don't have much to fear from this disease, other than the potential of passing it on to their older relatives with possibly disastrous results.**Edit 03/09/20***Transmission in China happened among family members and close contacts. True “community spread” was less common.IWe’re learning a lot about the coronavirus. It will help us assess risk****Edit 03/18/20****Better and more recent information from South Korea's CDC on TDR (total death rate) demographics. KCDC. They have the best data currently, as they have a vigorous and widespread testing program. The US could learn much from them. Hopefully we will. Its becoming readily apparent that the first casualty of this pandemic is the global economy. Widespread total lockdowns maintained indefinitely are probably going to result in a roaring Great Depression. We are in a war, and war is hell, because people die. Unpleasant decisions with no answers that make everyone a winner typify war.Korean CDC TDR is stabilizing at 1% of the general population (please see the link)80 and above. 10.84%70-79. 5.35%60-69 1.51%50-59. .37%40-49 .09%30-39 .11%30 and below, effectively 0%The numbers suggest a solution. Maybe the Netherland’s recent policy choice to reach herd immunity, (when 60% of the population has already had the disease and has developed immunity to it) quickly and with as little collateral damage as possible is the way forward. Flattening the curve ( where everyone gets the disease anyway, just at a slower pace) to reduce the collateral damage is going to result in immense damage on the economy which may result in far more casualties than if we went for herd immunity instead. Instead of locking down the entire society, those most at risk, 70 and above, and those with health complications, shelter in place, while the rest of society supports them to the maximum extent. That might mean a crash program of building more temporary medical facilities and equipment to deal with the extreme cases affected by the disease.The bottom line with this disease is that we're going to have casualties, because absent a vaccine, which is probably more than a year out, it's likely a vast majority of the society is going to get this disease. But we must look at the economic trade-offs of all our potential approaches to the disease. Do we wish to kill off the economy an attempt to stop the disease completely, when it is likely, as we might see with the Chinese experience, that it may take off again once the lockdown is relaxed and most of the population is still susceptible? All that economic damage, which is a real set back for real people, for naught.Somewhere between the two approaches, might be massive ongoing disease surveillance through a vigorous and ongoing testing program, combined with information technologies, that will identify people who can or cannot move about in society based on their disease status. This is going to involve giving up some of our freedom's temporarily, and I mean emphasis on that last word! The Chinese and to a lesser extent the Koreans have already explored this avenue and have an ongoing program. This might allow for a technologically controlled burn of the epidemic through our societies while minimizing damage.The bottom line is this disease will not last forever, and most of society has very little risk from it, as you can see from the Korean CDC information. But there is a portion of our society that is going to be absolutely hammered by this disease, so the question is: how do we go on living while protecting them to the best of our ability?BTW, the author is 58 years old, so certainly not in the most highest risk group, but also not completely without risk either.Its ironic that in an information age we are destroying ourselves because of the dearth of it in one crucial area: everyone's Covid-19 status. Infected, recovered and immune, uninfected, we have very small samples of the data that we need, so we have to assume, and act, as everyone is Typhoid Mary.Imagine an economy where credit reports didn't exist. Where lenders would have to assume, in the absence of information on credit worthiness, that everyone was a deadbeat. Such an economy would be typified by some rudimentary barter, and overall poverty, as lenders would have to assume the worst, and either not lend at all, or at an extreme penalty rate.We need massive and ongoing testing for two of those categories, infected and uninfected, with the information placed in a personal Health Report that can be accessed by any. Only then will our economy move away from barter and extreme poverty, which is where we're headed now if we don't do something about it by getting ubiquitous testing implemented.****03/26/20***My how the world has changed in a relative blink of an eye. From a globalized planet to lockdown planet, where movement within even nations or even within cities is far from guaranteed as societies try and stop the spread of Covid-19. Economies plunge into a deep freeze.Couple of predictions/thoughtsLockdowns are not at all sustainable. Standards of living will rapidly plunge in this mode; a politically unacceptable outcome.We know, with some statistical outliers, who has the most to fear from the spread of this unstoppable virus; roughly those 70 and above years old, and those with complicating factors. The rest have very little risk, and probably smaller than the figures from the KCDC above, as no nation has really been able to test widely enough to know what the true denominator of those infected yet, due to lack of resources. We will get the true numbers soon.Instead of multiple nations on the planet, we are going to have two: over the next two years before a vaccine is developed, those that have reason to fear the virus, and those that don't. The two will be separated by a wall that will be higher than Donald Trump could imagine and get someone else to pay for.There will be an early transfer of power from those 70+ to younger generations, as the 70+ crowd is forced to lock themselves down.Vote by mail or over the Internet will be adopted everywhere, otherwise the 70+ group will be completely disenfranchised.There will be a credit-like report for health on everyone, showing status: uninfected but not immune, immune, or contagious. This report will be required to participate physically in society for some time until herd immunity is achieved. It will be absolutely required to cross national borders.Trends already in place like telecommuting, ecommerce, the digitization of life, etc will intensify.Energy used in personal transportation will plunge until herd immunity is achieved.Nations that achieve herd immunity first will have an advantage over those that don't. China, by using its authoritarian form of governance, has, so far, been able to stop the spread of the virus, but what seems like an advantage, will turn into a disadvantage, as how does an uninfected country trade with an infected world?From the perspective of the virus, there are no individuals; only households. Mixed risk households will be under extreme pressure to split up. Likewise for nations/trading blocks. No region can run a different coronavirus policy than others within a trading block and remain as part of it.

Ramu, life at sea is very different. If you are fond of travelling, adventurous, have love for uniform, Merchant Navy is the right career for you. Just a glimpse for you:It is not a routine 9 to 5 work. We work in 2 shifts of 4 hours each 4 on 8 off (AM & PM)High Salary and one becomes an Officer at a very young age with responsibilities. His peers on land can only dream of such salaries.Tax free (conditions apply)Foreign exchange for your countryRank and status in society at a young age (Captain in 10 years)Respect for uniform: In case one is a uniform fan, the maritime career is an exciting option.It is a challenging Work 24x7 and gives a feeling of adventure.Quick Decision making keeps the mind active and alertOne learns the art of working as a TeamHighly disciplined and punctual lifeOne learns and appreciates the ‘Dignity of Labour’ – Proud to do your own routines.Sense of FreedomExtended vacations – 3 on 3 off. One can pursue Hobbies. One gets to enjoy the best of both the worlds – on land and on water. It is definitely long enough to unwind and follow all your passions.One has to be cautious, focused and alertOne learns Risk Assessment and Disaster Management.One undergoes special Training in essentials like Fire, Medical and Safety which are a lifetime asset.Dealing and Interacting with various Nationalities in Various CountriesVarious Cultures and various food habits of peoplePeople involved in the merchant marines get to see the world.Pure environment, one can see Nature in its most natural and pure form – Unpredictable Oceans in its various statesThe dolphins and the albatrossesCo-relating Life with the Ocean - calm before and after the StormA career in Merchant Navy is not only challenging and rewarding, in fact it is far more than that.

In renewables (assuming you mean renewables for electricity production), assuming that outright disinformation is out, I can probably point to one of three reasons:Old information: While the state of the art in renewable power R&D has been plodding along for decades, the economic story has changed radically only in the last few years. What was true ten years ago is no longer true today. What was true five years ago is no longer true today. Many people formed opinions based on information that might have been true at the time but is obsolete, and haven't really advanced beyond that point.Scenario disagreement, which is a proxy for policy disagreement: Simply put, in the question of "are renewable power sources economically competitive?" there is a good deal of debate as to what "economically competitive" means. For some people, it means absolutely no support from governments whatsoever, including the complete lack of a regulatory framework. For others, it includes a full suite of policy initiatives including measures to address carbon emissions. If you don't agree on the premise of the question, then there can hardly be agreement on the answer.The effects of scaling up: Renewables have an intermittency problem, which results in problems in current energy distribution infrastructure when at there is a high level of grid penetration. There is a lot of legitimate, largely academic disagreement on what the costs of renewables are when deployed at very high scale - though the Germans are conducting a great experiment on this in the form of the Energiewende.Regarding nuclear power, there are a whole host of intractable disagreements, most of which boil down to some variation of the following question: "What constitutes an acceptable degree of risk?" I know that you specified economic competitiveness rather than social license for the technology, but it turns out that this question has a lot to do with the economics in a big way.The cost of regulation: Proponents of nuclear power have generally argued that the regulatory burden on nuclear power is very high and has unreasonably inflated the costs of constructing new nuclear plants. The argument generally goes that many regulations are redundant or fail a cost-benefit analysis in that they do not advance public safety at an acceptable cost. Opponents of this position either make a technical case by disputing the assessment of public safety or by disputing the effectiveness of mitigation measures in the absence of regulation. As I noted before, this is a variation on what level of risk we as a society are willing to accept and, in a related dispute, whether this risk is knowable.The cost of public scrutiny: Separate from regulation, nuclear power advocates argue (probably fairly) that nuclear power receives public attention out of proportion to its actual risk, which leads to rapidly escalating non-operation, non-capital costs. These lead to financial cost through delays, very expensive litigation, and poor public relations whenever a company decides to make a nuclear plant. Nuclear proponents feel this is unjustified, nuclear opponents feel it is not, and no matter what happens nuclear opponents will probably keep on doing it - it just matters whether the nuclear power plant's builder is obligated to pay attention. Again, whether the risk is acceptable or knowable is front and center here since litigation and public comments are directly based on these contentions.The effectiveness of new nuclear plant designs: The nuclear industry has largely stayed with the same designs last built in the United States in the 1970s. Nuclear proponents typically argue that newer designs can reduce costs and waste. Nuclear opponents usually retort that the newer designs are unproven in terms of safety and effectiveness, and point to cost inflation in the construction records of actual plants. Both sides kind of have a point. Ditto above.The effectiveness of non-regulatory cost reduction: This position sells a counterfactual (to Americans, at least) in which nuclear power schemes can be made competitive through either massive scale-down (modular reactors), massive scale-up (French nuclear centralization) or design simplification.Once again, scenario disagreement as a proxy for policy disagreement: There is some contention that nuclear power plants are massively subsidized (and there are subsidies in place in most countries where they exist, it's true), while proponents tend to retort either by minimizing the impact of subsidies on competitiveness or by noting it as compensation for the high level of regulatory burden they bear.