6 ms·

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.

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.
  - irq11 7y ago
    ...in 1918. When we didn’t have things like antibiotics or mechanical ventilators (or even a solid grasp on germ theory). Non-adjusted comparisons to medical outcomes in 1918 are useless. (pre-empting the criticism: antibiotics absolutely matter for a viral outbreak like this. Many people who die from respiratory illness actually die from secondary bacterial pneumonia.)
    - swsieber 7y ago
      The observed mortality rate already accounts for advances in medicine that are actively being used, no? Mortality rates are easy to compare: x% died back then and y% die now. Those numbers take into account the various characteristics of the disease and health care. People aren't saying this acts like the 1918 disease so it should have the same mortality rate. People are saying the observed mortality rate is the same. That's in spite of medical advances.
peanut_is_yum 7y ago
Thanks for the tip! Since I hadn't lived thru anything that threatened my society, I never believed in stocking up on non-perishables. However, the fact that I'm living thru a potential pandemic convinces me that we as a race aren't nearly as resilient as our modern amenities and high QoL suggest.
- irq11 7y ago
  News you can use: you’re living through multiple pandemics, all the time. There’s a flu pandemic (several, actually), that are far more immediately threatening to you than this virus. Society has not yet fallen.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Yes, but we have vaccines for the flu, and as far as I can tell this is far more contagious. Even with a lower mortality rate, the death toll could be much higher. If things do start getting bad, I expect it might happen rather suddenly.
    - irq11 7y ago
      It is about as contagious as the flu. Stop fear-mongering. Also, not for nothing: most people don’t get the flu vaccine, despite endless begging on the part of health officials.
      - senordevnyc 7y ago
        It’s much, much deadlier and more likely to put you in the hospital than the flu, though. The trite comparisons to the flu are honestly irresponsible at this point. There’s a reason public health officials all over the world are taking this very seriously.
        irq11 7y ago
        It is not. You are making up “facts” and need to stop. This virus disproportionately kills old and sick people. Aside from the fact that over 80% of cases are mild, the death rate in patients under 60 is well under 1%: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-china-51540981 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia... Even these are based mostly on statistics from Wuhan, where a “confirmed infection” has to be severe to begin with; these rates are going to be overestimates of the real rates.

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.
- irq11 7y ago
  ...in 1918. When we didn’t have things like antibiotics or mechanical ventilators (or even a solid grasp on germ theory). Non-adjusted comparisons to medical outcomes in 1918 are useless. (pre-empting the criticism: antibiotics absolutely matter for a viral outbreak like this. Many people who die from respiratory illness actually die from secondary bacterial pneumonia.)
  - swsieber 7y ago
    The observed mortality rate already accounts for advances in medicine that are actively being used, no? Mortality rates are easy to compare: x% died back then and y% die now. Those numbers take into account the various characteristics of the disease and health care. People aren't saying this acts like the 1918 disease so it should have the same mortality rate. People are saying the observed mortality rate is the same. That's in spite of medical advances.

peanut_is_yum 7y ago

Thanks for the tip! Since I hadn't lived thru anything that threatened my society, I never believed in stocking up on non-perishables. However, the fact that I'm living thru a potential pandemic convinces me that we as a race aren't nearly as resilient as our modern amenities and high QoL suggest.

irq11 7y ago
News you can use: you’re living through multiple pandemics, all the time. There’s a flu pandemic (several, actually), that are far more immediately threatening to you than this virus. Society has not yet fallen.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Yes, but we have vaccines for the flu, and as far as I can tell this is far more contagious. Even with a lower mortality rate, the death toll could be much higher. If things do start getting bad, I expect it might happen rather suddenly.
  - irq11 7y ago
    It is about as contagious as the flu. Stop fear-mongering. Also, not for nothing: most people don’t get the flu vaccine, despite endless begging on the part of health officials.
    - senordevnyc 7y ago
      It’s much, much deadlier and more likely to put you in the hospital than the flu, though. The trite comparisons to the flu are honestly irresponsible at this point. There’s a reason public health officials all over the world are taking this very seriously.
      - irq11 7y ago
        It is not. You are making up “facts” and need to stop. This virus disproportionately kills old and sick people. Aside from the fact that over 80% of cases are mild, the death rate in patients under 60 is well under 1%: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-china-51540981 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia... Even these are based mostly on statistics from Wuhan, where a “confirmed infection” has to be severe to begin with; these rates are going to be overestimates of the real rates.