The article doesn't really source its stance and goes off on speculative tangents that can cause a lot of deaths if people accept it as a common mindset. These

The article doesn't really source its stance and goes off on speculative tangents that can cause a lot of deaths if people accept it as a common mindset. These days I see people saying that it's "just like the flu" and in general denial about how bad 2% mortality can get - this is much more harmful than urging a state of readiness and preparedness. A Harvard professor explains[1] that denial is far worse than panic. The latter jolts us into a state of preparedness, while the former will result in many deaths should things turn out differently than expected. With regards to the author's disagreement on the 2% number, I am not sure they are correct. The author says that there is testing bias, but I'd imagine a good sample of people in Wuhan have been tested by now, and yet China's reported mortality rates are still just over 2%. And 2% is a big deal, so we should take this seriously - we should panic. 2% means mass graves, and it means ten times the casualties of the Holocaust. Utilizing panics to influence policy to have a well-oiled rapid-response plan in place for pandemics cannot be a bad thing. The CDC's recent missteps are evidence of this. Perhaps we are lucky that COVID-19 might "only" be 2% - we shouldn't assume that the next pandemic will be as kind. [1]: https://nieman.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/pod-assets/microsites/NiemanGuideToCoveringPandemicFlu/CrisisCommunication/HowDoPeopleReactInAPandemic.aspx.html https://nieman.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/pod-assets/mic...