5 ms·

Don't rely on CDC. Don't rely on external parties. You are responsible for your health not your government. If you're in a high risk category (old, history of

Don't rely on CDC. Don't rely on external parties. You are responsible for your health not your government. If you're in a high risk category (old, history of chronic cough, cardiovascular issues, etc) then you should consider self isolating even at the cost of your job if WFH is not an option. As China and Korea have demonstrated, this quickly becomes a problem much larger than the authorities are resourced to handle. At that point your health is in your hands and your hands only.

alttab 7y ago
My company seems to be consistently behind the edge data with regards to policy. For instance, self isolation is still 14 days. This isn't enough. They are also restricting isolation and travel only to "affected areas of Italy" instead of all of Italy. It boggles my mind that people say "the risk is low" and "we don't know how to contain it or where these cases are coming from" in the same presser.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  14 days is still probably enough. There are scattered reports of people staying asymptomatic for longer, but they're hard to confirm (maybe you weren't actually exposed at the start) and certainly very rare. The goal of self-isolation is to severely reduce transmission, not to make it 100% impossible. People say the risk is low because it's probably good on net if the cases are coming from everywhere; it would indicate that the visible clusters where people die a lot are anomalies, and most cases aren't that bad. The worst case scenario is that containment is impossible but it really hasn't spread widely yet.
- gnulinux 7y ago
  US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny. There is no spike of pneumonia anywhere currently, which means there is likely no huge cluster of 1000s of people infected. That's why it's low risk as in chances of catching COVID-19 is very low. But this doesn't mean they will be able to contain it.
  - pbourke 7y ago
    > US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny Do you have a source for that? I know that there is a nationwide flu surveillance system run by CDC, and it has indicated that most states are at or near peak - is that what you’re referring to?
- edoceo 7y ago
  Too right! Low risk and unknown risk are very different things.
yongjik 7y ago
Excuse me, what the hell? Korea has so far tested 66,652 cases. All under government supervision. Local governments are barging into churches of those damned Sincheonji cultists responsible for the outbreak, in order to obtain the list of church members. Police force is tracking down cultists who failed to respond. Of course, not all is well, and some critics are arguing we should have blocked people coming from China, which is something only the government can do, by the way. Seriously, Korea is a living demonstration how the government is absolutely critical in controlling an epidemic. I'm tired of this fetishization of "individual responsibility" with no basis in reality.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Both government and individual responsibility are critical and necessary to controlling the outbreak. The government can not wash your hands for you, or preemptively tell if you becoming sick. I don't see how reminding people of their individual responsibility is detrimental to a government response.
- Jommi 7y ago
  Can we refrain from any unfounded hate on a religious group? It's not confirmed that they have some anything malicious, and even so it does nothing to help further solving the problem.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    Their comment does not seem to be particularly hateful against the religious group for it's religion, but it's behavior in hiding sick members' identities and increasing transmission rates. It's already becoming well known that that particular church sect is linked to the start of the disease in South Korea: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/808914718/secretive-church-sect-at-the-center-of-south-koreas-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/8089147...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

alttab 7y ago

My company seems to be consistently behind the edge data with regards to policy. For instance, self isolation is still 14 days. This isn't enough. They are also restricting isolation and travel only to "affected areas of Italy" instead of all of Italy. It boggles my mind that people say "the risk is low" and "we don't know how to contain it or where these cases are coming from" in the same presser.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
14 days is still probably enough. There are scattered reports of people staying asymptomatic for longer, but they're hard to confirm (maybe you weren't actually exposed at the start) and certainly very rare. The goal of self-isolation is to severely reduce transmission, not to make it 100% impossible. People say the risk is low because it's probably good on net if the cases are coming from everywhere; it would indicate that the visible clusters where people die a lot are anomalies, and most cases aren't that bad. The worst case scenario is that containment is impossible but it really hasn't spread widely yet.
gnulinux 7y ago
US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny. There is no spike of pneumonia anywhere currently, which means there is likely no huge cluster of 1000s of people infected. That's why it's low risk as in chances of catching COVID-19 is very low. But this doesn't mean they will be able to contain it.
- pbourke 7y ago
  > US pneumonia rates are under very close scrutiny Do you have a source for that? I know that there is a nationwide flu surveillance system run by CDC, and it has indicated that most states are at or near peak - is that what you’re referring to?
edoceo 7y ago
Too right! Low risk and unknown risk are very different things.

yongjik 7y ago

Excuse me, what the hell? Korea has so far tested 66,652 cases. All under government supervision. Local governments are barging into churches of those damned Sincheonji cultists responsible for the outbreak, in order to obtain the list of church members. Police force is tracking down cultists who failed to respond. Of course, not all is well, and some critics are arguing we should have blocked people coming from China, which is something only the government can do, by the way. Seriously, Korea is a living demonstration how the government is absolutely critical in controlling an epidemic. I'm tired of this fetishization of "individual responsibility" with no basis in reality.

s1artibartfast 7y ago
Both government and individual responsibility are critical and necessary to controlling the outbreak. The government can not wash your hands for you, or preemptively tell if you becoming sick. I don't see how reminding people of their individual responsibility is detrimental to a government response.
Jommi 7y ago
Can we refrain from any unfounded hate on a religious group? It's not confirmed that they have some anything malicious, and even so it does nothing to help further solving the problem.
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  Their comment does not seem to be particularly hateful against the religious group for it's religion, but it's behavior in hiding sick members' identities and increasing transmission rates. It's already becoming well known that that particular church sect is linked to the start of the disease in South Korea: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/808914718/secretive-church-sect-at-the-center-of-south-koreas-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/24/8089147...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]