3 ms·

This post sounds like a conspiracy theory. The reason traditional media and other authoritative sources are so reluctant to post speculation is to avoid spread

This post sounds like a conspiracy theory. The reason traditional media and other authoritative sources are so reluctant to post speculation is to avoid spreading unwarranted panic. Right now, Influenza is a far bigger risk to the average person, and less than half of Americans bother to get vaccinated.

chrisco255 7y ago
Well the vaccine is only about 50% effective so it's sort of a tossup if it's worth getting.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  If the vaccine gives me 50% protection from a disease that will leave me bedridden for a week and that disease has a 0.1% chance of killing me, I'll take that vaccine (and I have -- ever year now for the past 20 or so years, ever since I last got the flu). I can't say whether or not it's working, but I haven't caught the flu since I started getting vaccinated.
  - wolfram74 7y ago
    .1% is pretty pessimistic on vaccine mortality. There are circumstances where it would be preferable to the alternative, but I don't think there are any /that/ bad.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      No, I mean the disease (the flu) has a 0.1% chance of killing me. I wouldn't take the vaccine if the mortality risk was that high (unless I was protecting myself from a disease with a much worse mortality rate) (I edited my previous post to clarify)
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        I wouldn't assume your individual risk profile is equal to the average death rate, which is somewhere around 1 in 1000 to 1 in 2500. It's not a random occurrence when you die from the flu. Certain people have a higher risk profile depending on health, age, and immune system dynamics.
        Johnny555 7y ago
        True, but I'm not going to visit the doctor each year for a flu risk evaluation so it's a good ballpark estimate
DataWorker 7y ago
Is a false sense of security better than spreading panic? Shouldn’t the goal be accurate reporting of the science and statistics, done in a way the general public can understand? Why lie to keep people calm when that is certain to push the R0 higher? (It’s increasingly difficult for me to assume good faith when people keep comparing it to the flu, despite clear and overwhelming evidence, in multiple domains!, to the contrary.)
- Johnny555 7y ago
  What advice would you have them give? The CDC (and mainstream newssources) already advises commonsense strategies to avoid respiratory illnesses of all types like regular handwashing, don't touch the face, eyes or mouth, stay home when feeling sick, etc. What else would should they be telling people?
  - DataWorker 7y ago
    Preemptive social distancing to slow the spread. This is done by educating the public about the probabilities involved thus increasing fear, increase social distancing and decreasing the r0, maybe even enough to avert the coming pandemic. The downside to this is a short term economic hit, the upside is using the “window of opportunity,” as the WHO calls this interim period, to avert or at least slow the spread. A number of helpful policies might come As the result of public demand for more potent measures. For instance greater travel restrictions like those being enacted in other countries. Also, we could actually test people like they are doing elsewhere. That would allow American patients to receive remdesivir. Right now we aren’t testing, so the first bunch of American cases won’t get proper treatment and some, I think many, will suffer worse outcomes and maybe even death because they won’t be identified at first because there’s “no evidence of spread yet” and regular Americans can’t be PUI yet. I get that it’s a medical ethics issue, but do people really get that? I don’t think they do.

chrisco255 7y ago

Well the vaccine is only about 50% effective so it's sort of a tossup if it's worth getting.

Johnny555 7y ago
If the vaccine gives me 50% protection from a disease that will leave me bedridden for a week and that disease has a 0.1% chance of killing me, I'll take that vaccine (and I have -- ever year now for the past 20 or so years, ever since I last got the flu). I can't say whether or not it's working, but I haven't caught the flu since I started getting vaccinated.
- wolfram74 7y ago
  .1% is pretty pessimistic on vaccine mortality. There are circumstances where it would be preferable to the alternative, but I don't think there are any /that/ bad.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    No, I mean the disease (the flu) has a 0.1% chance of killing me. I wouldn't take the vaccine if the mortality risk was that high (unless I was protecting myself from a disease with a much worse mortality rate) (I edited my previous post to clarify)
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      I wouldn't assume your individual risk profile is equal to the average death rate, which is somewhere around 1 in 1000 to 1 in 2500. It's not a random occurrence when you die from the flu. Certain people have a higher risk profile depending on health, age, and immune system dynamics.
      - Johnny555 7y ago
        True, but I'm not going to visit the doctor each year for a flu risk evaluation so it's a good ballpark estimate

DataWorker 7y ago

Is a false sense of security better than spreading panic? Shouldn’t the goal be accurate reporting of the science and statistics, done in a way the general public can understand? Why lie to keep people calm when that is certain to push the R0 higher? (It’s increasingly difficult for me to assume good faith when people keep comparing it to the flu, despite clear and overwhelming evidence, in multiple domains!, to the contrary.)

Johnny555 7y ago
What advice would you have them give? The CDC (and mainstream newssources) already advises commonsense strategies to avoid respiratory illnesses of all types like regular handwashing, don't touch the face, eyes or mouth, stay home when feeling sick, etc. What else would should they be telling people?
- DataWorker 7y ago
  Preemptive social distancing to slow the spread. This is done by educating the public about the probabilities involved thus increasing fear, increase social distancing and decreasing the r0, maybe even enough to avert the coming pandemic. The downside to this is a short term economic hit, the upside is using the “window of opportunity,” as the WHO calls this interim period, to avert or at least slow the spread. A number of helpful policies might come As the result of public demand for more potent measures. For instance greater travel restrictions like those being enacted in other countries. Also, we could actually test people like they are doing elsewhere. That would allow American patients to receive remdesivir. Right now we aren’t testing, so the first bunch of American cases won’t get proper treatment and some, I think many, will suffer worse outcomes and maybe even death because they won’t be identified at first because there’s “no evidence of spread yet” and regular Americans can’t be PUI yet. I get that it’s a medical ethics issue, but do people really get that? I don’t think they do.