6 ms·

You're wrong, but primarily because you insist on treating human life so trivially. Get to work eh? A best case scenario, one where the actual CFR is half what

You're wrong, but primarily because you insist on treating human life so trivially. Get to work eh? A best case scenario, one where the actual CFR is half what the evidence shows now is 0.25%. 30% of the population gets the flu in a regular year, so, for America that ends up being a flu season that kills 10 times more people than in an average year. But you're focus on people hacking and wheezing their way to death. You're ignoring upwards of 5-15% of those people who will have to be on a ventilator OR WORSE. This is NOTHING like the flu. You would do yourself a favor also to examine what it is that Italy, Wuhan and South Korea are going through to try and stop it. They certainly aren't "GOING BACK TO WORK."

arcticbull 7y ago
> You're wrong, but primarily because you insist on treating human life so trivially. No, it's because I'm not overweighting risks that are trivial for the vast, vast majority of people. Of course if you're over 80 and have 3 pre-existing comorbid conditions (as is in Italy) you should be careful. If you're under 10, nobody's died. In fact nCoV-19 doesn't really even spread between children. If you're under 40 the mortality rate is 0.2%, and that's a worse-case number including folks with co-morbid conditions. Risk exists, and we should be comfortable with it. I recommend reading Schneier's essay on our decreasing tolerance for risk [1] and how it can often lead to us doing ourselves more harm than good. You have a 1% lifetime risk of dying in a car accident. You've got a 2% lifetime risk of dying of an opioid overdose. > But you're focus on people hacking and wheezing their way to death. You're ignoring upwards of 5-15% of those people who will have to be on a ventilator OR WORSE. This is NOTHING like the flu. Yes, it is like the flu. H1N1 Influenza A has a ~10% mortality rate in the elderly, similar to nCoV-19. > You would do yourself a favor also to examine what it is that Italy, Wuhan and South Korea are going through to try and stop it. They certainly aren't "GOING BACK TO WORK." Really the economic and individual harm and impact there has a lot to do with what they're doing to try and stop the spread. The cure is worse than the disease here. They probably should go back to work, though, and in China, they already are. They should wash their hands and stay home if they're sick, and get back to work. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
- altcognito 7y ago
  How many deaths will warrant taking preventive actions I wonder? (preventative actions like quarantine, which, was the only way it was stopped from spreading before China "went back to work")
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I'm not saying that the reaction wasn't warranted initially when we had no idea how bad the disease was. What I'm saying is the level of panic, especially now, is totally unjustified. The hoarding canned goods and battening down the hatches. Insane relative to risk.
    - altcognito 7y ago
      And I'm asking you, with the number of infection doubling daily in countries that don't batten down the hatches, or quarantine because everyone should just get back to work as you said -- what is the acceptable number of deaths before quarantine is acceptable?
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Something that poses the same order of magnitude risk as the flu should be responded to/reacted to in the same order of magnitude as the flu. So far 80,000 people have died this flu season alone. If you're not hoarding canned goods for influenza, you shouldn't hoard canned goods for nCoV-19.
        altcognito 7y ago
        Not the question I asked, and it's convenient that you didn't provide a citation for that stat, because you well know that was the worst flu season in 40 years, AND it wasn't "this year".
        arcticbull 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago

> You're wrong, but primarily because you insist on treating human life so trivially. No, it's because I'm not overweighting risks that are trivial for the vast, vast majority of people. Of course if you're over 80 and have 3 pre-existing comorbid conditions (as is in Italy) you should be careful. If you're under 10, nobody's died. In fact nCoV-19 doesn't really even spread between children. If you're under 40 the mortality rate is 0.2%, and that's a worse-case number including folks with co-morbid conditions. Risk exists, and we should be comfortable with it. I recommend reading Schneier's essay on our decreasing tolerance for risk [1] and how it can often lead to us doing ourselves more harm than good. You have a 1% lifetime risk of dying in a car accident. You've got a 2% lifetime risk of dying of an opioid overdose. > But you're focus on people hacking and wheezing their way to death. You're ignoring upwards of 5-15% of those people who will have to be on a ventilator OR WORSE. This is NOTHING like the flu. Yes, it is like the flu. H1N1 Influenza A has a ~10% mortality rate in the elderly, similar to nCoV-19. > You would do yourself a favor also to examine what it is that Italy, Wuhan and South Korea are going through to try and stop it. They certainly aren't "GOING BACK TO WORK." Really the economic and individual harm and impact there has a lot to do with what they're doing to try and stop the spread. The cure is worse than the disease here. They probably should go back to work, though, and in China, they already are. They should wash their hands and stay home if they're sick, and get back to work. [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...

altcognito 7y ago
How many deaths will warrant taking preventive actions I wonder? (preventative actions like quarantine, which, was the only way it was stopped from spreading before China "went back to work")
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I'm not saying that the reaction wasn't warranted initially when we had no idea how bad the disease was. What I'm saying is the level of panic, especially now, is totally unjustified. The hoarding canned goods and battening down the hatches. Insane relative to risk.
  - altcognito 7y ago
    And I'm asking you, with the number of infection doubling daily in countries that don't batten down the hatches, or quarantine because everyone should just get back to work as you said -- what is the acceptable number of deaths before quarantine is acceptable?
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Something that poses the same order of magnitude risk as the flu should be responded to/reacted to in the same order of magnitude as the flu. So far 80,000 people have died this flu season alone. If you're not hoarding canned goods for influenza, you shouldn't hoard canned goods for nCoV-19.
      - altcognito 7y ago
        Not the question I asked, and it's convenient that you didn't provide a citation for that stat, because you well know that was the worst flu season in 40 years, AND it wasn't "this year".
        arcticbull 7y ago