7 ms·

The article becomes much less edgy if you know what the authorities are actually saying. For example, the American CDC, in USA Today[1]: "Dr. Nancy Messonnier

by dkarl 7y ago

The article becomes much less edgy if you know what the authorities are actually saying. For example, the American CDC, in USA Today[1]: "Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters Friday that U.S. health officials are preparing for the coronavirus to become a pandemic." "'We’re not seeing community spread here in the United States, yet, but it’s very possible, even likely, that it may eventually happen,” she said. “Our goal continues to be slowing the introduction of the virus into the U.S. This buys us more time to prepare communities for more cases and possibly sustained spread.'" Sooooo... today's edgy "the media and authorities are keeping us in the dark" blog post got scooped two days ago by the CDC and USA Today. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/02/21/coronavirus-who-contain-outbreak-iran-deaths-south-korea-cases/4829278002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/02/21/coronav...

Frost1x 7y ago
Following a few comments from experts in the field and looking at some of the data being presented, it's fairly obvious this pandemic case was reasonably high. There are of course lots of unknowns models used can't account for but that's no reason to discard the potential risk entirely. Keep in mind, many of these decisions to avoid "pandemic" talk try to take most holistic views in regards to public safety/health. There is a lot of consideration regarding deaths cause by panic actions which are often estimated/modeled as well and if panic related deaths and side effects are higher than a current actual threat, it's often viewed that the best course of action is to suppress panic until warranted. So lack of pandemic talk doesn't inherently mean there is a legitimate reason not to panic, just that you're being given limited information. At the same time you shouldn't assume experts, the media, etc. are somehow mass conspiring against your health/safety. Assessments are probably reasonable to follow. The best course of action is to also take a holistic look at situations independent of these groups and make your own rational assessment of risks and impact. If you don't already have some non-perishable food supplies, you should have completely irrespective of this specific recent viral outbreak--its basic preparedness for emergencies. Some basic preparedness (I'm not talking bunkers and 2 year food cache craziness) are warranted in general for unpredictable disaster cases so these situations are good reminders for people to check their pantry for food, etc. just in case something awful was to happen, those supplies can help significantly.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  I also bought 3 months supplies of Emergen-C, Mucinex, Robitussin, and Alka-Seltzer orange and green Cold and Flu pills.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > At the same time you shouldn't assume experts, the media, etc. are somehow mass conspiring against your health/safety. Assessments are probably reasonable to follow. True, but it's also not their job to work for my personal benefit. Mine is. Their job is to do the greatest good for the greatest number, but what is good for the most people is not always good for me. My job is to keep myself and my family safe, and I don't trust bureaucrats enough to make the call that I have to lose out for the "greater good". All that aside, at least according to China, the mortality rates aren't all that high (a few percent). We'll see what happens elsewhere, but I don't think there's reason to panic yet.
  - WaltPurvis 7y ago
    > the mortality rates aren't all that high (a few percent) That's about the same mortality rate as the pandemic flu of 1918, which wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
    - hazeii 7y ago
      Tricky to compare, because health care is better these days so mortality would be expected to be lower (unless the system is overwhelmed, of course).
      - swsieber 7y ago
        Uh, they don't calculate the mortality rate of the virus by guessing how many people would have died in 1900's care. The mortality rate is that high because that's the percentage of people currently dying. Mortality rates are easy to compare - they are numbers that take healthcare and disease intensity into account because they are statistics from observation. If anything, the numbers suggest that had the covid-19 struck in 1918, the mortality rate would have been higher.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pmoriarty 7y ago
"We’re not seeing community spread here in the United States" The US is barely doing any testing, so if there was community spread of COVID-19 in the US right now, there's a good chance they wouldn't even know about it.
- cameldrv 7y ago
  My understanding is that until very recently they wouldn’t do the test unless you had been to Hubei, so there would be no community spread by definition.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
icegreentea2 7y ago
I think part of the article's point was that communications to the overall public is kind of lack luster. One of the key bits of the article is that we need to get the individual citizen mentally and physically ready, and that involves helping articulate (ahead of time) what the types of actions and behaviors may become necessary. What does living through a pandemic actually entail? What are the actions to take now, and what actions will I have to take? Communities aren't just made of public health organizations and hospitals and emergency workers, they're made of individual citizens and their families and friends. Communities should be made prepared from both the top down, and from the bottom up. But yes, definitely less edgy and out there.
strangeloops85 7y ago
As many public health experts and virologists are now pointing out (and as I am sure many at CDC have long realized), there's no way to know if there's community spread without actually testing for it. Current testing capacity is severely limited - which is baffling really, given that Korea is running like 6000 tests/ days now. Part of it is a logistical / technical screw-up: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/cdc-coronavirus-116529 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/cdc-coronavirus-116... For example, if you're a doctor with a case of atypical pneumonia, there's no way to actually test a patient for it unless there's clear China (possibly Hubei!) travel history. And that could take 3-7 days. However, consider the Canadian ER doctor who a few days ago decided to ask for a test for a woman who had traveled back from Iran recently - turned out she had it, and it revealed to us unexpected, but very real vectors of transmission. These technical issues have to be solved, otherwise there's no way to distinguish this from regular seasonal flu cases and pneumonias, until - like in Wuhan - the atypical cases bubble up. At that point, it's really too late to do much containment.

by dkarl 7y ago

Frost1x 7y ago

Following a few comments from experts in the field and looking at some of the data being presented, it's fairly obvious this pandemic case was reasonably high. There are of course lots of unknowns models used can't account for but that's no reason to discard the potential risk entirely. Keep in mind, many of these decisions to avoid "pandemic" talk try to take most holistic views in regards to public safety/health. There is a lot of consideration regarding deaths cause by panic actions which are often estimated/modeled as well and if panic related deaths and side effects are higher than a current actual threat, it's often viewed that the best course of action is to suppress panic until warranted. So lack of pandemic talk doesn't inherently mean there is a legitimate reason not to panic, just that you're being given limited information. At the same time you shouldn't assume experts, the media, etc. are somehow mass conspiring against your health/safety. Assessments are probably reasonable to follow. The best course of action is to also take a holistic look at situations independent of these groups and make your own rational assessment of risks and impact. If you don't already have some non-perishable food supplies, you should have completely irrespective of this specific recent viral outbreak--its basic preparedness for emergencies. Some basic preparedness (I'm not talking bunkers and 2 year food cache craziness) are warranted in general for unpredictable disaster cases so these situations are good reminders for people to check their pantry for food, etc. just in case something awful was to happen, those supplies can help significantly.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
I also bought 3 months supplies of Emergen-C, Mucinex, Robitussin, and Alka-Seltzer orange and green Cold and Flu pills.
big_chungus 7y ago
> At the same time you shouldn't assume experts, the media, etc. are somehow mass conspiring against your health/safety. Assessments are probably reasonable to follow. True, but it's also not their job to work for my personal benefit. Mine is. Their job is to do the greatest good for the greatest number, but what is good for the most people is not always good for me. My job is to keep myself and my family safe, and I don't trust bureaucrats enough to make the call that I have to lose out for the "greater good". All that aside, at least according to China, the mortality rates aren't all that high (a few percent). We'll see what happens elsewhere, but I don't think there's reason to panic yet.
- WaltPurvis 7y ago
  > the mortality rates aren't all that high (a few percent) That's about the same mortality rate as the pandemic flu of 1918, which wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
  - hazeii 7y ago
    Tricky to compare, because health care is better these days so mortality would be expected to be lower (unless the system is overwhelmed, of course).
    - swsieber 7y ago
      Uh, they don't calculate the mortality rate of the virus by guessing how many people would have died in 1900's care. The mortality rate is that high because that's the percentage of people currently dying. Mortality rates are easy to compare - they are numbers that take healthcare and disease intensity into account because they are statistics from observation. If anything, the numbers suggest that had the covid-19 struck in 1918, the mortality rate would have been higher.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pmoriarty 7y ago

"We’re not seeing community spread here in the United States" The US is barely doing any testing, so if there was community spread of COVID-19 in the US right now, there's a good chance they wouldn't even know about it.

cameldrv 7y ago
My understanding is that until very recently they wouldn’t do the test unless you had been to Hubei, so there would be no community spread by definition.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

icegreentea2 7y ago

I think part of the article's point was that communications to the overall public is kind of lack luster. One of the key bits of the article is that we need to get the individual citizen mentally and physically ready, and that involves helping articulate (ahead of time) what the types of actions and behaviors may become necessary. What does living through a pandemic actually entail? What are the actions to take now, and what actions will I have to take? Communities aren't just made of public health organizations and hospitals and emergency workers, they're made of individual citizens and their families and friends. Communities should be made prepared from both the top down, and from the bottom up. But yes, definitely less edgy and out there.

strangeloops85 7y ago

As many public health experts and virologists are now pointing out (and as I am sure many at CDC have long realized), there's no way to know if there's community spread without actually testing for it. Current testing capacity is severely limited - which is baffling really, given that Korea is running like 6000 tests/ days now. Part of it is a logistical / technical screw-up: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/cdc-coronavirus-116529 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/20/cdc-coronavirus-116... For example, if you're a doctor with a case of atypical pneumonia, there's no way to actually test a patient for it unless there's clear China (possibly Hubei!) travel history. And that could take 3-7 days. However, consider the Canadian ER doctor who a few days ago decided to ask for a test for a woman who had traveled back from Iran recently - turned out she had it, and it revealed to us unexpected, but very real vectors of transmission. These technical issues have to be solved, otherwise there's no way to distinguish this from regular seasonal flu cases and pneumonias, until - like in Wuhan - the atypical cases bubble up. At that point, it's really too late to do much containment.