3 ms·

I'm baffled that you found a way to read my comment and think it's 'against caution'. Could you please tell me where I said that I'm 'against caution' or in any

I'm baffled that you found a way to read my comment and think it's 'against caution'. Could you please tell me where I said that I'm 'against caution' or in any way implied it. I'm really interested. I 100% support the recommendations of the CDC and WHO, who literally advise against the hysteria since it is hurting their response: https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/03-03-2020-shortage-of-personal-protective-equipment-endangering-health-workers-worldwide https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/03-03-2020-shortage-of-... They also provide a list of suggestions which I think is what people should focus on, and then continue living as normal: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331215/WHO-2019-nCov-IPCPPE_use-2020.1-eng.pdf https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331215/WHO-... Since I literally already do all the things they suggest, and I think most reasonable people do, then I'm not sure what else we should do?

inimino 7y ago
I'm not sure what you consider "hysteria", since you haven't said, but in case you forgot, the comment you replied to was about people staying home and canceling travel plans, and the economic impact of this, not about hoarding PPE. Staying home and canceling travel plans is the caution your comment seems to argue against. I responded to your comment in this context, and to your non sequitur "number 15" argument.
- NicolasGorden 7y ago
  I generally use words based on their dictionary definitions as colloquial terms (which is generally implied since I've not identified as an expert). So in this case, I say hysteria as in the definition: "ungovernable emotional excess". So basically doing things that aren't reasonable as indicated by health experts. This means for everyone: - Staying home in areas with no contagion - Cancelling travel to place where there isn't a particularly high risk of contagion as defined by the CDC (basically, everything in grey here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.ht...) - Hording PPE For people who smoke, cancelling travel seems silly no matter where they go; they are already exposing themselves to a 33% mortality rate for something they choose to do. The worst place in the world for this virus still has a less than 0.005% probably of death (less than 0.1% of the population in Wuhan have the illness and less than 5% of those that do die). Surely we can agree that someone who smokes and fears the virus is having 'emotional excess' when it comes to risk assessment. Now, how is mentioning the total number of US deaths from the virus as reported by the CDC a 'non sequitur' in relationship to fearing death from the virus in the US? It seems to me to actually follow quite reasonably. Also, if your accusation that I'm 'against caution' is to be cohesive and reasonable, it would seem to necessitate me asking people not to engage in precautionary activities that are recommended, so I'd like to know which they are. Surely we can agree that IF I did what you accused me, it would be very irresponsible. And I don't want to be irresponsible.
  - inimino 7y ago
    I explained why your number 14 was not comparable with the other numbers in my first comment. If you claim not to understand it, unless you are innumerate, I struggle to see how you are arguing in good faith.
    - NicolasGorden 7y ago
      I answered your question in detail and with references, I think that is a pretty obvious attempt of good faith. You literally accused me of doing something horrific (telling people to not have caution against a deadly disease is a horrible thing in my book) and then refused to substantiate your accusation, but I'm the one arguing in bad faith? OK.

inimino 7y ago

I'm not sure what you consider "hysteria", since you haven't said, but in case you forgot, the comment you replied to was about people staying home and canceling travel plans, and the economic impact of this, not about hoarding PPE. Staying home and canceling travel plans is the caution your comment seems to argue against. I responded to your comment in this context, and to your non sequitur "number 15" argument.

NicolasGorden 7y ago
I generally use words based on their dictionary definitions as colloquial terms (which is generally implied since I've not identified as an expert). So in this case, I say hysteria as in the definition: "ungovernable emotional excess". So basically doing things that aren't reasonable as indicated by health experts. This means for everyone: - Staying home in areas with no contagion - Cancelling travel to place where there isn't a particularly high risk of contagion as defined by the CDC (basically, everything in grey here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/index.ht...) - Hording PPE For people who smoke, cancelling travel seems silly no matter where they go; they are already exposing themselves to a 33% mortality rate for something they choose to do. The worst place in the world for this virus still has a less than 0.005% probably of death (less than 0.1% of the population in Wuhan have the illness and less than 5% of those that do die). Surely we can agree that someone who smokes and fears the virus is having 'emotional excess' when it comes to risk assessment. Now, how is mentioning the total number of US deaths from the virus as reported by the CDC a 'non sequitur' in relationship to fearing death from the virus in the US? It seems to me to actually follow quite reasonably. Also, if your accusation that I'm 'against caution' is to be cohesive and reasonable, it would seem to necessitate me asking people not to engage in precautionary activities that are recommended, so I'd like to know which they are. Surely we can agree that IF I did what you accused me, it would be very irresponsible. And I don't want to be irresponsible.
- inimino 7y ago
  I explained why your number 14 was not comparable with the other numbers in my first comment. If you claim not to understand it, unless you are innumerate, I struggle to see how you are arguing in good faith.
  - NicolasGorden 7y ago
    I answered your question in detail and with references, I think that is a pretty obvious attempt of good faith. You literally accused me of doing something horrific (telling people to not have caution against a deadly disease is a horrible thing in my book) and then refused to substantiate your accusation, but I'm the one arguing in bad faith? OK.