3 ms·

>I have news for you, if you think you have it you got it! Everyone will get it. Tracking this is a waste of resources at this point as the false positives mean

>I have news for you, if you think you have it you got it! Everyone will get it. Tracking this is a waste of resources at this point as the false positives mean additional limited Frontline Health Care workers treating actually sick individuals. I'm glad to see someone say this. The over reaction is causing more problems than the actual virus. With every other recent potential pandemic, there was a reasonable response, the severity of the diseases were responded to accordingly, panic was at a minimum, especially considering more recent scares have been with viruses that cause far more serious diseases than this latest one. This time, there's been an extreme focus on infection rates and zero focus on actual symptoms, which from every account i've seen so far, do not seem to be very terrifying for 99% of the population, yet the reaction has been just over the top everywhere. This is going to spread around the world, we'll either get it or we won't, it's not going anywhere, it's out in the world, as soon as the first person got sick and spread it, it was inevitable. There's so much effort globally going into trying to stop or hide from this and I still don't really understand why. When I was a kid, it was a regular thing to expose kids to chickenpox because it was just better to get it and get it over with, chickenpox sucked a whole lot. A whole lot more than having covid-19 would be from what I can tell. It's the symptoms of a disease that scare me, not whether i'll get it. Personally, I was a lot more worried about the recent flu virus from a few years back that was killing young healthy people, than this disease that's not much more than a bad cold unless you're knocking on death's door already or in your 80's. If people that get it, don't even realize they have it and nothing bad is really happening to them, then why should I be losing my shit and freaking out? Why should I be scared of getting a disease that's about the same as something I get nearly every year anyway?

dboreham 7y ago
I think you're slightly off track as to the frustration with lack of testing: Let's start with widespread complacency opposed to requests to take distancing measures: people (not me, but .. read FB comments from regular people on news stories) are mad at sports events being canceled because "nobody has the virus". So we don't get the social distancing response needed. If on the other hand we had some testing data from the general population, or even from just mildly sick people, then the requests for social distancing could be presented with "and we know this thing is here now, so these measures are going to have a significant effect".
pavas 7y ago
Because you aren't everyone else. There are lots of people that would be hit very hard and require intense hospitalization or face death if they were to get COVID-19. Furthermore, this would put a strain on medical resources if the number of patients is higher than medical capacity. Suddenly all the treatable conditions that require medical supervision become deadly because there aren't enough medical personnel and resources to treat everyone. Got in an accident requiring emergency care? Maybe you won't be able to get it now. More still, all the medical personnel who would otherwise have gotten a flu shot and been immune to its spread now have to worry about catching COVID-19 and having medical resources spread even more thin, at the worst time. You can't just think of yourself, you have an ethical duty to consider the externalities of your actions. Edit: Maybe I should point out that panicking or worrying about it does no good and that should be minimized as much as possible. However, if people are not treating it as seriously as they should, then maybe a little bit of panic and worry would be a good thing to get people into a proper state of mind about what is going to happen.
wpietri 7y ago
> do not seem to be very terrifying for 99% of the population This is a dangerously bad take. The death rate is in the 2-3% range. Hospitalization in China was 15%, with 5% in critical care. Even if you are not personally vulnerable, please understand that those who are also actual humans, and have actual humans as family members. And if you can't manage to care about that, recognize that a pandemic of this magnitude could easily overwhelm the US hospital system: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/10/simple-math-alarming-answers-covid-19/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/10/simple-math-alarming-ans... As we're seeing in Italy, an overwhelmed hospital system leads to increase death rates from many other causes, because suddenly the level of care goes down. If all the ICU beds are full and you, say, get hit by a truck, you'll be triaged along with all the other people needing ICU. If a COVID-19 patient looks more likely to recover than you, well, you'll be left out in the hallway.
robotbikes 7y ago
Well one concerning statistic is the 20% of cases that require hospitalization. Not sure what that is for the standard flu but I suspect its not that high. If the hospitals are full like what happened in Italy and China and people who need medical help can't get it, it seems like the death rate is much higher like 3.5% vs. .1% for the standard flu. The virus really is mostly a danger for the elderly and so the public health goals are slowing the spread, flattening the curve so that the people who get it whose immune systems aren't able to overcome it as well can get the medical help that they need vs. being told to go home and die like they have had to do in Northern Italy. Also the difference in asymptomatic incubation is a lot higher than the flu so people can spread it w/o realizing it. I read flu has max of 4 days incubation with typical period of 1.5 whereas this has a mean of 5 and max of 14, and possible shedding during asymptomatic period so you could be infecting people a lot longer before you get sick and its harder to trace all contacts.
xsmasher 7y ago
The disease is not bad for most people. HOWEVER, the the real threat is too many people getting it at once, 10% need critical care, and that overloads our medical services. That is what has happened in Italy. https://www.flattenthecurve.com https://www.flattenthecurve.com
master-litty 7y ago
Every meaningful authority is suggesting you do the opposite — Do not panic, there is no need to freak out. But you should still avoid getting it and spreading it to others. Having a slower, more controlled growth gives us significantly more time to find a vaccine and learn more about the virus. People who are immunocompromised, whether by age or otherwise, are a vulnerable part of our society worth protecting. This virus isn’t an inconvenience like the chickenpox, it is killing people.

dboreham 7y ago

I think you're slightly off track as to the frustration with lack of testing: Let's start with widespread complacency opposed to requests to take distancing measures: people (not me, but .. read FB comments from regular people on news stories) are mad at sports events being canceled because "nobody has the virus". So we don't get the social distancing response needed. If on the other hand we had some testing data from the general population, or even from just mildly sick people, then the requests for social distancing could be presented with "and we know this thing is here now, so these measures are going to have a significant effect".

pavas 7y ago

Because you aren't everyone else. There are lots of people that would be hit very hard and require intense hospitalization or face death if they were to get COVID-19. Furthermore, this would put a strain on medical resources if the number of patients is higher than medical capacity. Suddenly all the treatable conditions that require medical supervision become deadly because there aren't enough medical personnel and resources to treat everyone. Got in an accident requiring emergency care? Maybe you won't be able to get it now. More still, all the medical personnel who would otherwise have gotten a flu shot and been immune to its spread now have to worry about catching COVID-19 and having medical resources spread even more thin, at the worst time. You can't just think of yourself, you have an ethical duty to consider the externalities of your actions. Edit: Maybe I should point out that panicking or worrying about it does no good and that should be minimized as much as possible. However, if people are not treating it as seriously as they should, then maybe a little bit of panic and worry would be a good thing to get people into a proper state of mind about what is going to happen.

wpietri 7y ago

> do not seem to be very terrifying for 99% of the population This is a dangerously bad take. The death rate is in the 2-3% range. Hospitalization in China was 15%, with 5% in critical care. Even if you are not personally vulnerable, please understand that those who are also actual humans, and have actual humans as family members. And if you can't manage to care about that, recognize that a pandemic of this magnitude could easily overwhelm the US hospital system: https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/10/simple-math-alarming-answers-covid-19/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/10/simple-math-alarming-ans... As we're seeing in Italy, an overwhelmed hospital system leads to increase death rates from many other causes, because suddenly the level of care goes down. If all the ICU beds are full and you, say, get hit by a truck, you'll be triaged along with all the other people needing ICU. If a COVID-19 patient looks more likely to recover than you, well, you'll be left out in the hallway.

robotbikes 7y ago

Well one concerning statistic is the 20% of cases that require hospitalization. Not sure what that is for the standard flu but I suspect its not that high. If the hospitals are full like what happened in Italy and China and people who need medical help can't get it, it seems like the death rate is much higher like 3.5% vs. .1% for the standard flu. The virus really is mostly a danger for the elderly and so the public health goals are slowing the spread, flattening the curve so that the people who get it whose immune systems aren't able to overcome it as well can get the medical help that they need vs. being told to go home and die like they have had to do in Northern Italy. Also the difference in asymptomatic incubation is a lot higher than the flu so people can spread it w/o realizing it. I read flu has max of 4 days incubation with typical period of 1.5 whereas this has a mean of 5 and max of 14, and possible shedding during asymptomatic period so you could be infecting people a lot longer before you get sick and its harder to trace all contacts.

xsmasher 7y ago

The disease is not bad for most people. HOWEVER, the the real threat is too many people getting it at once, 10% need critical care, and that overloads our medical services. That is what has happened in Italy. https://www.flattenthecurve.com https://www.flattenthecurve.com

master-litty 7y ago

Every meaningful authority is suggesting you do the opposite — Do not panic, there is no need to freak out. But you should still avoid getting it and spreading it to others. Having a slower, more controlled growth gives us significantly more time to find a vaccine and learn more about the virus. People who are immunocompromised, whether by age or otherwise, are a vulnerable part of our society worth protecting. This virus isn’t an inconvenience like the chickenpox, it is killing people.