4 ms·

Yes, perspective matters, so here's another: 3% x number of infections. What fraction of the population were exposed to polio vs what fraction are going to be

Yes, perspective matters, so here's another: 3% x number of infections. What fraction of the population were exposed to polio vs what fraction are going to be exposed to coronavirus? It is the product of these factors which is causing the "freaking out" as you call it.

cheschire 7y ago
When the German chancellor is declaring 60% of the population will become infected, you start to get a sense of the scale. If you look at just first world nations[0], you're talking a total population of 1.04 billion people. 60% of that is 630 million people. 3% of that 60% is 18 million people that could die just in the first world nations. And that's rounding everything down. 0: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/first-world-countries/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/first-world-coun...
- hef19898 7y ago
  technically it is not wrong, after all it is backed by actual, true science. That being said, this estimation assumes that nothing will change, so no working counter measures of any kind. In reality, you have China. They are nowhere near these numbers. In Germany trade show get cancelled, events get cancelled, soccer games take place without spectators, schools close. Quarantine measures will certainly be put in place as well when needed. All this helps to keep infections down and slow the spreading. It worked in China after all. I am no expert on diseaes, but I did my fair amount of number crunching. And that tell me that just taking the current average of deaths and infections, currently somewhere around 3.4%, extrapolate the number of infections worldwide and multiply the two doesn't fly. At the very least you have to brake down the world population by age groups based on the same groups we have specific mortality rates for. doing so already gives you a better picture and a more realistic number. Nobody who comes up with expected fatalities seems to bother to do so. Obviously, that leaves the whole impact of counter-measures out of the equation. it doesn't account for time nor for any regionl clusters of people. Neither does it account for any local shortages due to an overwhelmed medical system for certain periods in certain regions. Or for any steps taken to counter these effects. To properly do so requires a full scale modelling of this thing. unfortunately the numbers are changing quite fast, so building these models is quite ifficult i suspect. You would also have to account for margins of error and the fact that testing is a major influence in any parameter of this model. And testing varies highly between countries. TLDR: The numbers a re a mess, calculation and modelling is difficult and everything is changing daily. Good luck with coming up with any reliable predictions. I would love to see numbers for testing so. Especially how many tests have been conducted by region, how many where positive and how many negative. Ideally over time.
Vysero 7y ago
Agreed and when we find out that the actual mortality rate is only .1% after 50mil+ people have been infected then will people come back on hacker news and recant? Will they explain to everyone that their reaction was largely based on fear and apologize for attempting to spread that fear to as many people as they possible could?
- hef19898 7y ago
  I gave that some thought lately. Because I simply don't get it why people would do that. Virus or not, I simply don't get that kind of behaviour, I have a long history where this bites my ass scially. My current theory is that people are just scared. The numbers seem scary (no baseline as things like the flu are not nearly as thoroughly reported by the press) and every new infection and fatality is extensovely covered, whle the bigger picture isn't. Then this whole thing is just one big unknown, and humans are programmed to fear the unknown. Then you have confirmation bias, people tend to seek information confirming their opinions. Social media is designed to reinforce this bias, media is ware of that an needs clicks.This further reinforces this effect. Also people want confirmation, so they actally seek out these filter bubbles. Humans in general also tend to be bad at risk management and evaluation. So, psychlogically I suspect it is just fear, combined with a desire for confirmation. Because, as crazy it is in my eyes, sharing your fears makes it easier for you to bear. Others not being affraid and giving you pushback on that is the last thing these people want or need. I have still no idea how tackle that, spreading fear is still just plain wrong. Pushback and facts don't seem to work, so no idea what would.
  - Vysero 7y ago
    Even if this turns out to be VERY bad the fear response is nonsensical. If a Grizzly bear is charging you down panicking is not going to help. If you want to see what a measured response to something like this looks like, go speak to a therapist/physiologist and gauge their reaction. Hell, go speak with anyone who has seen real combat and ask them how they feel about the general public's reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak.
    - 7y ago

cheschire 7y ago

When the German chancellor is declaring 60% of the population will become infected, you start to get a sense of the scale. If you look at just first world nations[0], you're talking a total population of 1.04 billion people. 60% of that is 630 million people. 3% of that 60% is 18 million people that could die just in the first world nations. And that's rounding everything down. 0: https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/first-world-countries/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/first-world-coun...

hef19898 7y ago
technically it is not wrong, after all it is backed by actual, true science. That being said, this estimation assumes that nothing will change, so no working counter measures of any kind. In reality, you have China. They are nowhere near these numbers. In Germany trade show get cancelled, events get cancelled, soccer games take place without spectators, schools close. Quarantine measures will certainly be put in place as well when needed. All this helps to keep infections down and slow the spreading. It worked in China after all. I am no expert on diseaes, but I did my fair amount of number crunching. And that tell me that just taking the current average of deaths and infections, currently somewhere around 3.4%, extrapolate the number of infections worldwide and multiply the two doesn't fly. At the very least you have to brake down the world population by age groups based on the same groups we have specific mortality rates for. doing so already gives you a better picture and a more realistic number. Nobody who comes up with expected fatalities seems to bother to do so. Obviously, that leaves the whole impact of counter-measures out of the equation. it doesn't account for time nor for any regionl clusters of people. Neither does it account for any local shortages due to an overwhelmed medical system for certain periods in certain regions. Or for any steps taken to counter these effects. To properly do so requires a full scale modelling of this thing. unfortunately the numbers are changing quite fast, so building these models is quite ifficult i suspect. You would also have to account for margins of error and the fact that testing is a major influence in any parameter of this model. And testing varies highly between countries. TLDR: The numbers a re a mess, calculation and modelling is difficult and everything is changing daily. Good luck with coming up with any reliable predictions. I would love to see numbers for testing so. Especially how many tests have been conducted by region, how many where positive and how many negative. Ideally over time.

Vysero 7y ago

Agreed and when we find out that the actual mortality rate is only .1% after 50mil+ people have been infected then will people come back on hacker news and recant? Will they explain to everyone that their reaction was largely based on fear and apologize for attempting to spread that fear to as many people as they possible could?

hef19898 7y ago
I gave that some thought lately. Because I simply don't get it why people would do that. Virus or not, I simply don't get that kind of behaviour, I have a long history where this bites my ass scially. My current theory is that people are just scared. The numbers seem scary (no baseline as things like the flu are not nearly as thoroughly reported by the press) and every new infection and fatality is extensovely covered, whle the bigger picture isn't. Then this whole thing is just one big unknown, and humans are programmed to fear the unknown. Then you have confirmation bias, people tend to seek information confirming their opinions. Social media is designed to reinforce this bias, media is ware of that an needs clicks.This further reinforces this effect. Also people want confirmation, so they actally seek out these filter bubbles. Humans in general also tend to be bad at risk management and evaluation. So, psychlogically I suspect it is just fear, combined with a desire for confirmation. Because, as crazy it is in my eyes, sharing your fears makes it easier for you to bear. Others not being affraid and giving you pushback on that is the last thing these people want or need. I have still no idea how tackle that, spreading fear is still just plain wrong. Pushback and facts don't seem to work, so no idea what would.
- Vysero 7y ago
  Even if this turns out to be VERY bad the fear response is nonsensical. If a Grizzly bear is charging you down panicking is not going to help. If you want to see what a measured response to something like this looks like, go speak to a therapist/physiologist and gauge their reaction. Hell, go speak with anyone who has seen real combat and ask them how they feel about the general public's reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak.
  - 7y ago