6 ms·
That's the thing though: it either doesn't spread very rapidly except in very specific circumstances, or it has way more asymptomatic/mild cases than is commonl
by _-___________-_ 7y ago
That's the thing though: it either doesn't spread very rapidly except in very specific circumstances, or it has way more asymptomatic/mild cases than is commonly claimed. Otherwise we would already see far more confirmed cases than there are.
Given the massive economic damage that the measures already taken are inflicting, I for one am very glad that it's not being "taken more seriously" than it is. I have predicted, and continue to predict, that when we're looking back at this, the response to COVID-19 will have done far more damage than the virus.
- ummonk 7y agoWhat do you consider “very rapid”? It has spread significantly faster than the swine flu epidemic did in its first two months. > I have predicted, and continue to predict, that when we're looking back at this, the response to COVID-19 will have done far more damage than the virus. That is rather likely and would mean that the containment efforts worked. Remember that the economic cost of containment shouldn’t be compared against the damage caused by the virus, but by the counterfactual damage that would be caused by an uncontained pandemic (which would be absolutely catastrophic given that the case fatality rate rises to the mid single digit percentages once healthcare infrastructure is saturated).
- _-___________-_ 7y agoThe problem is that many of the measures taken in the name of "containment" (travel restrictions for example) are likely ineffective and are explicitly disrecommended by public health experts. They are just easy measures to implement quickly, and are effective politically because they play to the population's pre-existing tendencies toward xenophobia.