5 ms·
>They need to prevent panic as much as possible, prevent economic collapse, etc. The response to events like this can be worse than the initial problem. If thi
by allovernow 7y ago
>They need to prevent panic as much as possible, prevent economic collapse, etc. The response to events like this can be worse than the initial problem.
If this event is half as bad as all the literature out of China is suggesting, panic is the least of our worries. What a responsible government should do is initiate some sort of recommendation for gradual stockpiling of goods - perhaps a lottery just to encourage the majority of people to calmly stock up in turns.
In any case the CDC has already issued warning to prepare for "severe disruption to everyday life." Now it's up to the ignorant population to wake up and realize that this isn't just another flu.
- Consultant32452 7y agoThere simply is not enough supplies for everyone to slowly stockpile goods. Supply chains are already being disrupted. In China beekeepers are not able to get their bees to crops. The bees are starving. This will negatively impact global honey and crop yields for years. In Italy panic buys are already leaving shelves empty. If the government tells everyone to slowly stock up what will really happen is panic buys and wide spread violence.
- allovernow 7y agoThe alternative is a mass panic when the virus arrives.
- Consultant32452 7y agoExactly. If you have to choose between guaranteed mass panic today and probable mass panic tomorrow, always choose tomorrow. This is what the professionals at places like the CDC understand.
- Barrin92 7y ago>If this event is half as bad as all the literature out of China is suggesting, panic is the least of our worries No. The risk of dying from this disease is negligible for most American adults. The real issue with the corona virus is economic disruption and overburdening of the healthcare system. All of which is significantly exarbarated by panic.
- allovernow 7y ago>The real issue with the corona virus is economic disruption and overburdening of the healthcare system. All of which is significantly exarbarated by panic Which is literally the point of my post. The population ideally will have started gradual, orderly preparation sooner. At this point it's better to have a short panic early rather than end up in a situation where the government kept quiet but suddenly the virus is here and people are running out of food and there's a mass panic. The longer the government waits, the worse the outcome will be.
- takeda 7y agoSay what you want, but 2% is not negligible. That's 1 of every 50 people. With 330,000,000 population that's over 6.5mil people. Yes, the mortality changes with age younger people are about 0.2% but older are close to 15%. Having health issues such as cardiovascular or diabetes increases the risk further, and Americans aren't the healthiest people.
- wool_gather 7y agoYou are mixing up several different measurements. First, parent was talking about the risk to an individual adult person; you yourself note that varies with other parameters including age. This isn't comparable to the 2% figure. Second, the mortality figure is 2% of people who are infected, not of the total population. So it's substantially less than 6.5 million people, unless literally everyone in the country catches the bug.
- Consultant32452 7y agoMortality rate in China is 3.8% nation wide, 5.8% in Wuhan. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-...
- vanusa 7y agoNo. The risk of dying from this disease is negligible for most American adults. Can you tell us please: (1) What your numeric definition of "negligible" is (2) And on what math this is estimate based?