3 ms·

I hope actions like this can start to make people wake up that this is in fact serious and should be taken seriously. Still too many people calling it a hoax a

I hope actions like this can start to make people wake up that this is in fact serious and should be taken seriously. Still too many people calling it a hoax and that it's no worse than a common cold.

colechristensen 7y ago
How bad does it have to be to fit in the "serious" vs. "not serious" bucket? It's like a rather bad influenza. The mortality rate is fairly low and difficult to estimate unless you test the entire population on a regular basis. It isn't like one of the outbreaks that kills 10%, 20%, 50% of the infected. It shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't be treated like a new black death. It is difficult for uninformed people to say "people are overreacting to a real threat".
- sonofaplum 7y ago
  it kills a low percentage but it infects a high percentage. So total deaths + seriously ill MAY be equal to a more lethal disease that is less infectious.
- lisper 7y ago
  > It isn't like one of the outbreaks that kills 10%, 20%, 50% of the infected. That's true, but it has one characteristic that makes it very nasty: it is highly contagious before you show any symptoms. That makes it very hard to contain. So we only have two options: either try to contain it despite the difficulty, or just give up, let it spread, and essentially sacrifice 1% of the world's population. 1% is better than 10% of course, but that's still 70 million people.
- ska 7y ago
  It's not the fatality rate you need to look at but the R0 and transmission mechanisms. The bad-case version of this isn't people dying in the streets of the virus, it's people dying needlessly (some in the streets) of preventable things because the healthcare system is completely log jammed and there are literally no more beds and no more staff available. This basically what Italy is staring at, currently. "It's like a rather bad influenza." This is quite likely dangerously obtuse; we won't know for sure for a while.
- nwallin 7y ago
  The fatality rate, and the rate at which people need intensive care, is 20-40 times that of the flu. If the fatality rate is 3%, and it affects half the US, that's 5 million dead from the disease alone. If it affects half the world, that's 100 million dead. Some estimates peg it as high as 4.8%. In addition to all of the people it's going to kill, it will also decimate the world's intensive care resources. Many people who would otherwise die will live because they got a bed in intensive care. Conditions which complete for these ICU beds will see their fatality rate sky rocket. It is incontrovertibly in the "serious" bucket.
  - mmazing 7y ago
    These people just see the odds and think "oh it probably won't get me" without any regard to anyone else. It's the hallmark of being a conservative.
ookblah 7y ago
unfortunately, this has caused some in the circle i know (mid-sized midwest city) to double down on stupid. that this is evidence of the hysteria and (not to get too political) some type of ploy to destabilize the economy and election. lol. what fun times we live in...

colechristensen 7y ago

How bad does it have to be to fit in the "serious" vs. "not serious" bucket? It's like a rather bad influenza. The mortality rate is fairly low and difficult to estimate unless you test the entire population on a regular basis. It isn't like one of the outbreaks that kills 10%, 20%, 50% of the infected. It shouldn't be ignored, but it also shouldn't be treated like a new black death. It is difficult for uninformed people to say "people are overreacting to a real threat".

sonofaplum 7y ago
it kills a low percentage but it infects a high percentage. So total deaths + seriously ill MAY be equal to a more lethal disease that is less infectious.
lisper 7y ago
> It isn't like one of the outbreaks that kills 10%, 20%, 50% of the infected. That's true, but it has one characteristic that makes it very nasty: it is highly contagious before you show any symptoms. That makes it very hard to contain. So we only have two options: either try to contain it despite the difficulty, or just give up, let it spread, and essentially sacrifice 1% of the world's population. 1% is better than 10% of course, but that's still 70 million people.
ska 7y ago
It's not the fatality rate you need to look at but the R0 and transmission mechanisms. The bad-case version of this isn't people dying in the streets of the virus, it's people dying needlessly (some in the streets) of preventable things because the healthcare system is completely log jammed and there are literally no more beds and no more staff available. This basically what Italy is staring at, currently. "It's like a rather bad influenza." This is quite likely dangerously obtuse; we won't know for sure for a while.
nwallin 7y ago
The fatality rate, and the rate at which people need intensive care, is 20-40 times that of the flu. If the fatality rate is 3%, and it affects half the US, that's 5 million dead from the disease alone. If it affects half the world, that's 100 million dead. Some estimates peg it as high as 4.8%. In addition to all of the people it's going to kill, it will also decimate the world's intensive care resources. Many people who would otherwise die will live because they got a bed in intensive care. Conditions which complete for these ICU beds will see their fatality rate sky rocket. It is incontrovertibly in the "serious" bucket.
- mmazing 7y ago
  These people just see the odds and think "oh it probably won't get me" without any regard to anyone else. It's the hallmark of being a conservative.

ookblah 7y ago

unfortunately, this has caused some in the circle i know (mid-sized midwest city) to double down on stupid. that this is evidence of the hysteria and (not to get too political) some type of ploy to destabilize the economy and election. lol. what fun times we live in...