4 ms·

There is a video which compares that to other causes of deaths and other "pandemics": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDD2tHWWnU https://www.youtube.com/watch

by bpfrh 7y ago

There is a video which compares that to other causes of deaths and other "pandemics": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDD2tHWWnU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDD2tHWWnU Please stop threating the virus as if we would all die. The things you have in the article should be the things you should do anyway: -No touching your face, is something you should stop anyway, as the flu will also kill you if you have bad luck and it is the same problem -Having certain things prepared in case there is a local emergency is a good idea anyway, but the recommandation at least in austria is about 10-14 days, so I hope most of the people already have that. -Supply chains won't break down because of such a virus, just as it didn't because of the swineflu and other things. -If supply chains break down, we have more than the coronavirus to worry about. edit: Pressed submit to soon

jacquesm 7y ago
No, we won't all die. But the impact will be substantial if the infections are not brought under control. Just like not everybody dies from many other diseases such as the flu. The difference here is that it also hits hard on otherwise healthy people and that healthcare workers are very much exposed to infection. If that front line does not hold it can get worse rapidly. Western countries with good medicine and infrastructure in place stand a chance of riding this out with just (possibly substantial) economic impact. Poor countries are in for a rough ride. Check out what is happening in Iran right now (which your linked video conveniently leaves out, possibly because it does not fit their narrative). Mortality rates around 2-5% for a pandemic are nothing to sneeze at, infection rates in close proximity are very high making it hard to care for those that are showing symptoms and put high density population centers at serious risk.
- bpfrh 7y ago
  You can't controll infections. You can try to fasttrack vaccinies, but you can't really stop a virus with such a transmission way from spreading. That is a problem but it is nothing new. Every few years we will have new diseases and unfortunately they will spread and kill people. The flu does that yearly. Does that suck? Yes Will it mean the end of the world or have a high impact on countries that have a robust healtcare system? No
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > You can't controll infections. No, but you can try to slow down the rate of infection to avoid overloading the healthcare system. > You can try to fasttrack vaccinies, but you can't really stop a virus with such a transmission way from spreading. Agreed. > That is a problem but it is nothing new. It certainly isn't anything new. But if the past is a guide here than the impact can be substantial. > Every few years we will have new diseases and unfortunately they will spread and kill people. We do. But most of those do not have this combined potential of spreading a-symptomatic; long incubation time and relatively high mortality. That makes this one more serious than for instance SARS and MERS, the impact of which was already substantial. > The flu does that yearly. If you want to compare what is happening now to the seasonal flu then you are probably not equipped to evaluate the risks. The flu predominantly affects those that are already weakened and it tends to kill people who would have been dead soon anyway. This virus is nothing like that. > Will it mean the end of the world or have a high impact on countries that have a robust healtcare system? No It won't mean the end of the world but it likely will have high impact on countries with robust healthcare systems because (1) the economies of those countries depend on everybody being free to move around and interact with each other, something which anti-spreading measures will affect and (2) even the most wealthy countries with robust healthcare systems have limited healthcare capacity, typically on the order of 1 ICU bed per 10000 people. Assuming you can staff them.
zrail 7y ago
Supply chains have already started to break down in at least a few sectors. China, Japan, India and Korea are where lots of stuff is made, including electronic components and drugs and drug components. China at least slowed shipping way down over the last month.

by bpfrh 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

No, we won't all die. But the impact will be substantial if the infections are not brought under control. Just like not everybody dies from many other diseases such as the flu. The difference here is that it also hits hard on otherwise healthy people and that healthcare workers are very much exposed to infection. If that front line does not hold it can get worse rapidly. Western countries with good medicine and infrastructure in place stand a chance of riding this out with just (possibly substantial) economic impact. Poor countries are in for a rough ride. Check out what is happening in Iran right now (which your linked video conveniently leaves out, possibly because it does not fit their narrative). Mortality rates around 2-5% for a pandemic are nothing to sneeze at, infection rates in close proximity are very high making it hard to care for those that are showing symptoms and put high density population centers at serious risk.

bpfrh 7y ago
You can't controll infections. You can try to fasttrack vaccinies, but you can't really stop a virus with such a transmission way from spreading. That is a problem but it is nothing new. Every few years we will have new diseases and unfortunately they will spread and kill people. The flu does that yearly. Does that suck? Yes Will it mean the end of the world or have a high impact on countries that have a robust healtcare system? No
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > You can't controll infections. No, but you can try to slow down the rate of infection to avoid overloading the healthcare system. > You can try to fasttrack vaccinies, but you can't really stop a virus with such a transmission way from spreading. Agreed. > That is a problem but it is nothing new. It certainly isn't anything new. But if the past is a guide here than the impact can be substantial. > Every few years we will have new diseases and unfortunately they will spread and kill people. We do. But most of those do not have this combined potential of spreading a-symptomatic; long incubation time and relatively high mortality. That makes this one more serious than for instance SARS and MERS, the impact of which was already substantial. > The flu does that yearly. If you want to compare what is happening now to the seasonal flu then you are probably not equipped to evaluate the risks. The flu predominantly affects those that are already weakened and it tends to kill people who would have been dead soon anyway. This virus is nothing like that. > Will it mean the end of the world or have a high impact on countries that have a robust healtcare system? No It won't mean the end of the world but it likely will have high impact on countries with robust healthcare systems because (1) the economies of those countries depend on everybody being free to move around and interact with each other, something which anti-spreading measures will affect and (2) even the most wealthy countries with robust healthcare systems have limited healthcare capacity, typically on the order of 1 ICU bed per 10000 people. Assuming you can staff them.

zrail 7y ago

Supply chains have already started to break down in at least a few sectors. China, Japan, India and Korea are where lots of stuff is made, including electronic components and drugs and drug components. China at least slowed shipping way down over the last month.