5 ms·

Norway got more cases than denmark (622 vs 514), and our government is still asleep. The "wait and see" attitude makes shure they are always 3 steps behind.

by laxd 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago
Or, alternatively, everyone's freaking out over something that just isn't as big a deal as everyone's making it out to be.
- undreren 7y ago
  This is what lethal ignorance looks like.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    0.5% lethal according to the latest stats — or 99.5% non-lethal for you optimists out there.
    - undreren 7y ago
      These are iniatives to spare the old and the weak. How little regard do you have for these people? Their mortality rate is way higher than 0.5%
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Read my response to a sister comment.
        undreren 7y ago
        I did. It is clear that you have no idea how bad this have gotten in other countries.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        I've been following the data, response and market reactions very closely.
    - dplavery92 7y ago
      Generate a random int from [0,199]. If you generated a 0, you die. Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance? I sure wouldn't take the bet on a lark, even though the expectation is that I live. Now think about extending that same game to your family and friends, to the school down the street, to the shopping mall, and to the elder's home in town. Some people are going to roll 0, and there's a real risk that some of those people are people you know and care about. And even if they're not, your community will still be dramatically affected. It could be your car mechanic, your office's custodial staff, or the greybeard in your office who knows how to decipher the old FORTRAN code. I'm not willing to be flippant about that. Even 1 in 200 people can be devastating emotional, logistical, and financial toll on a community. I'm not saying panic, but I don't think it's smart or responsible to downplay the risks of infection in a disease that is currently spreading exponentially (or, at least, maintains a positive growth ratio.) Canceling gatherings, temporarily closing schools, working from home, etc.--these are all inconvenient, they make our lives and business harder, they're having a negative financial impact. But they're also totally the reasonable course of action in the face of a pretty serious threat.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        There's a 1% lifetime chance you die in a car accident and 2% you die of an opioid overdose. Roll a die between [0,199] and get a 0,1 you die in a car wreck. Roll a 2,3,4 or a 5, and you die of an opioid overdose. I'd be willing to bet somewhere around the 6-10 range represents your risk of dying of a climate related change. Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance? Evidently none, because here we are diving cars, taking painkillers and rolling coal. This is a solid read: [1]. If you're immunocompromised or old, by all means, stay inside and don't associate with groups of people. If you're young and healthy, you're totally unequivocally fine. This quote is particularly apropos: "...We're bad at accurately assessing risk; we tend to exaggerate spectacular, strange, and rare events, and downplay ordinary, familiar, and common ones." [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
    - marvin 7y ago
      Or in the realm of 3% when hospitals are saturated, because everyone gets sick at once. Which they will with exponential spread and a doubling rate of 4 days. I don't consider it acceptable to sacrifice 3% of the population in one fell swoop, to avoid short-term economic damage. Or even a fraction of that. It's abhorrent. Please walk me through the moral reasoning if this is your stance. By the way, someone getting very, very sad because their quite healthy loved parent died a decade too early, is also economic damage.
- berdon 7y ago
  The risks of not freaking out and it decimating the populace should easily outweigh the risks of freaking out and it not having an impact. It's very difficult to even rationalize the latter because a freakout might mean the impact is negligible.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    At this point more than enough data exists to show the population will not be decimated.
    - berdon 7y ago
      At this point more than enough data exists to show the population will suffer ~1% losses. We shouldn't need 10% to freak out. Not to mention long-tail fatalities that might arise if it becomes an annual virus like the flu. When all that had to happen was people treat it seriously to begin with rather than saying "But the flu is way worse".
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        Maybe, or maybe not. Let’s say it’s 0.5% fatal and largely only to folks who are older and have comorbid conditions. Instead we panic 100% of people, leading to mass hysteria, loss of livelihood, global recession, military zombie apocalypse lockdowns and so on. What if our response causes more harm? It might well. Proportionality of response matters and so do second and third order effects. What if all the above causes more than 5000 suicides? Did we win?
        adonovan 7y ago
        The difference between 0.5% and 3% case fatality rate is in large part determined by whether hospitals become overwhelmed, and that in turn will be determined by whether we take immediate and widespread preemptive action to reduce the exponent of the infection curve.
        7y ago
contravariant 7y ago
At this point the number of cases is slightly less important than the rate. Denmark's numbers are increasing at a rate that's unprecedented amongst all current COVID-19 outbreaks (amongst the data that is available). The past 2 days the numbers in Denmark have tripled twice (and are on track to triple another time today). You could expect Denmarks numbers to overtake Norway's before the end of today or whenever the new measurements come in.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Denmark's # of confirmed cases was up 627% from yesterday. For anyone interested in watching this unfold, I highly recommend the daily posts by /u/Fwoggie2 on /r/supplychain. Every day he posts a status update on the growth of cases per country and supply chain impacts for goods across the globe. Here's the link to today's report. https://new.reddit.com/r/supplychain/comments/fgwbrx/covid19_update_wednesday_11th_march/ https://new.reddit.com/r/supplychain/comments/fgwbrx/covid19...
  - contravariant 7y ago
    It's worth pointing out that he seems to have missed the update on 2020-03-09 where the total was set to 90. But yeah it's pretty worrying. Especially since it almost doubled again today.
- jopsen 7y ago
  Probably more Danes to skiing in northern Italy. And who knows maybe the authorities have done a good job tracking down infected people -- implying that the number of unknown cases is small.
  - jmartinpetersen 7y ago
    The reason for these actions are that they can no longer track the infections.
    - jopsen 7y ago
thanatropism 7y ago
This is actually a great opportunity for a natural experiment. AFAIK Norws and Swedes have similar cultures re: touching and kissing; probably very similar genetics too. Curiosity aside: hope you live long and lucky.
- jopsen 7y ago
  But Danes travel more to nothern Italy for skiing.

Norway got more cases than denmark (622 vs 514), and our government is still asleep. The "wait and see" attitude makes shure they are always 3 steps behind.

by laxd 7y ago

Norway got more cases than denmark (622 vs 514), and our government is still asleep. The "wait and see" attitude makes shure they are always 3 steps behind.

arcticbull 7y ago

Or, alternatively, everyone's freaking out over something that just isn't as big a deal as everyone's making it out to be.

undreren 7y ago
This is what lethal ignorance looks like.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  0.5% lethal according to the latest stats — or 99.5% non-lethal for you optimists out there.
  - undreren 7y ago
    These are iniatives to spare the old and the weak. How little regard do you have for these people? Their mortality rate is way higher than 0.5%
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Read my response to a sister comment.
      - undreren 7y ago
        I did. It is clear that you have no idea how bad this have gotten in other countries.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        I've been following the data, response and market reactions very closely.
  - dplavery92 7y ago
    Generate a random int from [0,199]. If you generated a 0, you die. Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance? I sure wouldn't take the bet on a lark, even though the expectation is that I live. Now think about extending that same game to your family and friends, to the school down the street, to the shopping mall, and to the elder's home in town. Some people are going to roll 0, and there's a real risk that some of those people are people you know and care about. And even if they're not, your community will still be dramatically affected. It could be your car mechanic, your office's custodial staff, or the greybeard in your office who knows how to decipher the old FORTRAN code. I'm not willing to be flippant about that. Even 1 in 200 people can be devastating emotional, logistical, and financial toll on a community. I'm not saying panic, but I don't think it's smart or responsible to downplay the risks of infection in a disease that is currently spreading exponentially (or, at least, maintains a positive growth ratio.) Canceling gatherings, temporarily closing schools, working from home, etc.--these are all inconvenient, they make our lives and business harder, they're having a negative financial impact. But they're also totally the reasonable course of action in the face of a pretty serious threat.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      There's a 1% lifetime chance you die in a car accident and 2% you die of an opioid overdose. Roll a die between [0,199] and get a 0,1 you die in a car wreck. Roll a 2,3,4 or a 5, and you die of an opioid overdose. I'd be willing to bet somewhere around the 6-10 range represents your risk of dying of a climate related change. Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance? Evidently none, because here we are diving cars, taking painkillers and rolling coal. This is a solid read: [1]. If you're immunocompromised or old, by all means, stay inside and don't associate with groups of people. If you're young and healthy, you're totally unequivocally fine. This quote is particularly apropos: "...We're bad at accurately assessing risk; we tend to exaggerate spectacular, strange, and rare events, and downplay ordinary, familiar, and common ones." [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreasing_toler.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas...
  - marvin 7y ago
    Or in the realm of 3% when hospitals are saturated, because everyone gets sick at once. Which they will with exponential spread and a doubling rate of 4 days. I don't consider it acceptable to sacrifice 3% of the population in one fell swoop, to avoid short-term economic damage. Or even a fraction of that. It's abhorrent. Please walk me through the moral reasoning if this is your stance. By the way, someone getting very, very sad because their quite healthy loved parent died a decade too early, is also economic damage.
berdon 7y ago
The risks of not freaking out and it decimating the populace should easily outweigh the risks of freaking out and it not having an impact. It's very difficult to even rationalize the latter because a freakout might mean the impact is negligible.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  At this point more than enough data exists to show the population will not be decimated.
  - berdon 7y ago
    At this point more than enough data exists to show the population will suffer ~1% losses. We shouldn't need 10% to freak out. Not to mention long-tail fatalities that might arise if it becomes an annual virus like the flu. When all that had to happen was people treat it seriously to begin with rather than saying "But the flu is way worse".
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Maybe, or maybe not. Let’s say it’s 0.5% fatal and largely only to folks who are older and have comorbid conditions. Instead we panic 100% of people, leading to mass hysteria, loss of livelihood, global recession, military zombie apocalypse lockdowns and so on. What if our response causes more harm? It might well. Proportionality of response matters and so do second and third order effects. What if all the above causes more than 5000 suicides? Did we win?
      - adonovan 7y ago
        The difference between 0.5% and 3% case fatality rate is in large part determined by whether hospitals become overwhelmed, and that in turn will be determined by whether we take immediate and widespread preemptive action to reduce the exponent of the infection curve.
        7y ago

contravariant 7y ago

At this point the number of cases is slightly less important than the rate. Denmark's numbers are increasing at a rate that's unprecedented amongst all current COVID-19 outbreaks (amongst the data that is available). The past 2 days the numbers in Denmark have tripled twice (and are on track to triple another time today). You could expect Denmarks numbers to overtake Norway's before the end of today or whenever the new measurements come in.

Consultant32452 7y ago
Denmark's # of confirmed cases was up 627% from yesterday. For anyone interested in watching this unfold, I highly recommend the daily posts by /u/Fwoggie2 on /r/supplychain. Every day he posts a status update on the growth of cases per country and supply chain impacts for goods across the globe. Here's the link to today's report. https://new.reddit.com/r/supplychain/comments/fgwbrx/covid19_update_wednesday_11th_march/ https://new.reddit.com/r/supplychain/comments/fgwbrx/covid19...
- contravariant 7y ago
  It's worth pointing out that he seems to have missed the update on 2020-03-09 where the total was set to 90. But yeah it's pretty worrying. Especially since it almost doubled again today.
jopsen 7y ago
Probably more Danes to skiing in northern Italy. And who knows maybe the authorities have done a good job tracking down infected people -- implying that the number of unknown cases is small.
- jmartinpetersen 7y ago
  The reason for these actions are that they can no longer track the infections.
  - jopsen 7y ago

thanatropism 7y ago

This is actually a great opportunity for a natural experiment. AFAIK Norws and Swedes have similar cultures re: touching and kissing; probably very similar genetics too. Curiosity aside: hope you live long and lucky.

jopsen 7y ago
But Danes travel more to nothern Italy for skiing.