4 ms·

Ok, then do you think everyone should just open up and start travelling again?

jmnicolas 7y ago
I wouldn't travel to China now, but I wouldn't hesitate to travel anywhere else in the world (I'll gladly accept any donations to prove my point ;-)
- londons_explore 7y ago
  I'd even happily travel to china. My worry would be the risk of being stuck somewhere when my planned transport is cancelled rather than being infected and dying. 300 deaths out of over a billion people is nothing.
  - jmnicolas 7y ago
    https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h... According to this link there was 14451 cases in China, even if statistically insignificant (something like 0.001%) it's a bit much for my taste, especially if we consider that the Chinese authorities could have massively downplayed the number of infected persons.
  - xorfish 7y ago
    A virus with R0 of 2 and a mortality rate of 2% would kill 1% of the world population if no containment measures are taken. That would be 75 million people.
    - K0SM0S 7y ago
      Thanks, TIL. For those like me who paused at R₀ (r-naught), quote from wiki[1]: > R-naught is the average number of people infected from one other person, for example, Ebola has an r-naught of two, so on average, a person who has Ebola will pass it on to two other people. See “Limitations of R₀” too: when solely derived from math models, “values [of R₀] should be used with caution” and “this severely limits its usefulness.”. As I understand, take it for what it is: model not gospel. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
      - xorfish 7y ago
        Yes, quarantines and public awareness will reduce the spread quite significantly. Hopefully to the point that less than one person gets infected per sick individual.
  - unlinked_dll 7y ago
    why do you believe china's numbers?
  - ptx 7y ago
    A billion people is only 2^30.

I wouldn't travel to China now, but I wouldn't hesitate to travel anywhere else in the world (I'll gladly accept any donations to prove my point ;-)

londons_explore 7y ago
I'd even happily travel to china. My worry would be the risk of being stuck somewhere when my planned transport is cancelled rather than being infected and dying. 300 deaths out of over a billion people is nothing.
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.h... According to this link there was 14451 cases in China, even if statistically insignificant (something like 0.001%) it's a bit much for my taste, especially if we consider that the Chinese authorities could have massively downplayed the number of infected persons.
- xorfish 7y ago
  A virus with R0 of 2 and a mortality rate of 2% would kill 1% of the world population if no containment measures are taken. That would be 75 million people.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    Thanks, TIL. For those like me who paused at R₀ (r-naught), quote from wiki[1]: > R-naught is the average number of people infected from one other person, for example, Ebola has an r-naught of two, so on average, a person who has Ebola will pass it on to two other people. See “Limitations of R₀” too: when solely derived from math models, “values [of R₀] should be used with caution” and “this severely limits its usefulness.”. As I understand, take it for what it is: model not gospel. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
    - xorfish 7y ago
      Yes, quarantines and public awareness will reduce the spread quite significantly. Hopefully to the point that less than one person gets infected per sick individual.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  why do you believe china's numbers?
- ptx 7y ago
  A billion people is only 2^30.