5 ms·

Overall I would have to say absolutely, yes. The number of infections doesn't justify this level of panic, let alone the number of deaths. I realise there is an

Overall I would have to say absolutely, yes. The number of infections doesn't justify this level of panic, let alone the number of deaths. I realise there is an element of "prevention" here, but far, far more people die of very common things (flu, traffic accidents, smoking-related conditions, being overweight, etc.) in the US alone every year, some of which are also 100% preventable, than have died worldwide of coronavirus. Do we shut down borders because of a flu outbreak? No, it's just expected. The same can be said for any of the dozens of leading causes of death that exist in poverty-stricken countries where things like water contamination causing diarrhea kill more people than we could possibly imagine dying in the US. I'm not saying that there haven't been some good things to come out of this situation - people working from home and thereby saving gas, limiting pollution, etc.; increased awareness of basic cleanliness practices, particularly in some countries that are quite noticeably less fastidious than the US generally is; actual tests of some of our response mechanisms (I mean, you don't trust your backups unless you've used them...) - but the extraordinary response of basically shutting down Europe is so far and away over the top... I don't pretend to understand _why_ people have freaked out like this, but I suspect it's pretty much in line with why they freak out about anything: they've been programmed to wait for the "next big thing" that is going to kill us all by news, TV, movies; the news has, as usual, plastered everything across the "front page" on a constant basis, essentially "hyping" it up; and probably that on some deep psychological level we've all gotten a little overwhelmed with technological advances and how quickly the world has become a global market that is "always on", so we were unintentionally waiting for some way to pull back and deal with ourselves for a while.

dwaltrip 7y ago
Why are you completely ignoring the exponential nature of coronavirus? The amount of deaths have doubled fairly quickly and are now at 10k worldwide. The number of cases worldwide continues to grow exponentially. 7 more doublings, which could happen as soon as 5 weeks from now (I believe the doubling rate is around ~5 days) would bring us to 1 million deaths. And there is no particular reason it would stop there. My understanding is that it is not unlikely for something like half of the world to get infected if we can't contain it effectively. If the death rate is 1% -- which could easily be higher if the medical systems are overwhelmed -- then we are looking at 35 million dead.
- downerending 7y ago
  Also, it's important to realize that a lot of our data is "old". The tests for "cases" were probably queued for many days, and even when there is a result, might take a day or two to show up in the official stats. Beyond that, the infected individual has probably already been infectious for a week or two (or more?) prior to the test. Put all of that together, and a lot of our stats are stuck weeks in the past. Since the phenomenon itself is exponential and apparently has a fairly short doubling time (two to five days maybe), that delay is huge. We could be flying into the side of a mountain, and we probably wouldn't even know it. Given that, it'd be difficult to "overreact".
bbimbop 7y ago
You are so dumb that reading this hurts. Apparently you think this is a hoax. People like you that don't take this seriously right now will reel in the pure crisis and deaths that ensues. It's obviously worse than 1918 flu. The spread in the US is already very serious. Call anyone in NYC and ask. Please everyone don't listen to this utter fool. My jaw is on the floor because this guy's math is so basically flawed. Google Italy and have a nice day.
- chrismeller 7y ago
  Thanks. I respect your opinion, so very eloquently put, as well.
  - bbimbop 7y ago
    You're welcome. You'll see soon enough.
- dang 7y ago
  You can't attack someone else like this on HN, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. You owe the community much better if you're posting here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again.
notacoward 7y ago
> far, far more people die of very common things More people die of those things in a year than have died of COVID-19 so far but that's the wrong comparison. There's real science and math behind predictions of a much higher toll which would make the comparison look very different. There's also an aspect of who has control over outcomes. People can protect themselves from various ills by eating right, exercising, not smoking, etc. There's no connection to other people's actions or outcomes. With communicable disease, the person who's not worried about their own outcome can cause the literal death of other people who had no choice about being born with certain medical conditions that made them more susceptible. You might feel you're Living Right and you're at no risk yourself, but - as has been pointed out many times but apparently not enough - It's Not Just About You. Your actions are connected to others' outcomes. There's a social responsibility to avoid becoming a vector for infection.
- chrismeller 7y ago
  I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable. You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm Edit: It wasn't 8 people who have died, it was 97 according to the CDC. My bad.
  - notacoward 7y ago
    > even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.457910/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school. > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.
sharken 7y ago
I totally agree, in case someone brings up Italy and their current number of deaths to Corona - this article describes deaths to the common flu from 2013 through 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971219303285 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121.... The numbers look like this: Season - Deaths: 2013/14 - 7,027 2014/15 - 20,259 2015/16 - 15,801 2016/17 - 24,981 What makes Corona virus trigger lockdowns and panic is that the current 3,400 deaths has happened during a short timespan. But the total number of deaths is still a factor 7 less than the 2016/17 flu season, which was not covered nearly as extensive as the current Corona virus. So while every death is tragic, the common flu is still a worse threat to the elderly and that is even though a vaccine is produced every year.
- whb07 7y ago
  It has been over 3 months. We are going to look back and realize this disease isn't that deadly. The places that had excessive deaths like Italy will turn out to have been poorly managed, equipped, and staffed. Not to mention other things like majority of cases being 70+ yo with 3+ diseases.
  - frosted-flakes 7y ago
    But how will you know that the extreme measures weren't warranted, if they're successful? The world's leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place here: do nothing, and be known as the leader who didn't act and caused the deaths of thousands or millions. Act with appropriately extreme measures and prevent as many deaths, and everyone will think the measures weren't warranted because the measures were successful.
    - whb07 7y ago
      Because you’ll see other countries who didn’t and they aren’t dead. Not only that, is that at what point, is current and future generations well being worth to save the population that’s largely impacted by this? Meaning, it’s perverse to spend more resources on the elderly as opposed to the youth. This just dials up the perversion to an extreme.
wenc 7y ago
I think the question isn't whether we're overreacting or not (we'll never know the counterfactual), but whether our reaction produces the correct results. It seems to me that taking extreme precautions, even if in error, produces an outcome that is the lesser of evils. Let's look at scenarios for favoring not "overreacting": (this is your camp) ----- 1) If you don't take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID isn't worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy doesn't tank, life goes on. 2) If you don't take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID is worse than the flu = hospitals crumble, economy is destroyed, many deaths occur, and our way of life is over. ----- You're gambling that (1) is true. If you're right, great..... but if you're wrong, we'll end up with (2). On the other hand, here are the scenarios for the "overreacting" gamble (what we're doing now): ----- 3) If you take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID is worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy tanks but things eventually settle and there's a path to recovery. 4) If you take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID isn't worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy tanks but the virus fizzles out and things eventually return to normal. ----- This latter gamble, though expensive, provides us with a path to safety regardless of if we turn out to be right or wrong about COVID. Because we don't know enough about the virus and given the exponential spread we have to act on incomplete information, I would be in the camp of "overreacting". That said, I do sort of understand where your sentiment comes from. It is a position reinforced by a (healthy) distrust of media sensationalism, and recognition of the widespread human suffering that results from the economy tanking. I think that's a reasonable position, and one that I'm sympathetic to. However, the cost of being wrong here is just so unspeakably high that there's just greater prudence to choosing the latter (safer) path.

dwaltrip 7y ago

Why are you completely ignoring the exponential nature of coronavirus? The amount of deaths have doubled fairly quickly and are now at 10k worldwide. The number of cases worldwide continues to grow exponentially. 7 more doublings, which could happen as soon as 5 weeks from now (I believe the doubling rate is around ~5 days) would bring us to 1 million deaths. And there is no particular reason it would stop there. My understanding is that it is not unlikely for something like half of the world to get infected if we can't contain it effectively. If the death rate is 1% -- which could easily be higher if the medical systems are overwhelmed -- then we are looking at 35 million dead.

downerending 7y ago
Also, it's important to realize that a lot of our data is "old". The tests for "cases" were probably queued for many days, and even when there is a result, might take a day or two to show up in the official stats. Beyond that, the infected individual has probably already been infectious for a week or two (or more?) prior to the test. Put all of that together, and a lot of our stats are stuck weeks in the past. Since the phenomenon itself is exponential and apparently has a fairly short doubling time (two to five days maybe), that delay is huge. We could be flying into the side of a mountain, and we probably wouldn't even know it. Given that, it'd be difficult to "overreact".

bbimbop 7y ago

You are so dumb that reading this hurts. Apparently you think this is a hoax. People like you that don't take this seriously right now will reel in the pure crisis and deaths that ensues. It's obviously worse than 1918 flu. The spread in the US is already very serious. Call anyone in NYC and ask. Please everyone don't listen to this utter fool. My jaw is on the floor because this guy's math is so basically flawed. Google Italy and have a nice day.

chrismeller 7y ago
Thanks. I respect your opinion, so very eloquently put, as well.
- bbimbop 7y ago
  You're welcome. You'll see soon enough.
dang 7y ago
You can't attack someone else like this on HN, regardless of how wrong they are or you feel they are. You owe the community much better if you're posting here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't post like this again.

notacoward 7y ago

> far, far more people die of very common things More people die of those things in a year than have died of COVID-19 so far but that's the wrong comparison. There's real science and math behind predictions of a much higher toll which would make the comparison look very different. There's also an aspect of who has control over outcomes. People can protect themselves from various ills by eating right, exercising, not smoking, etc. There's no connection to other people's actions or outcomes. With communicable disease, the person who's not worried about their own outcome can cause the literal death of other people who had no choice about being born with certain medical conditions that made them more susceptible. You might feel you're Living Right and you're at no risk yourself, but - as has been pointed out many times but apparently not enough - It's Not Just About You. Your actions are connected to others' outcomes. There's a social responsibility to avoid becoming a vector for infection.

chrismeller 7y ago
I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable. You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold, but no one in the US ever wears a mask to prevent that (though in other countries that is a common sight). 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm Edit: It wasn't 8 people who have died, it was 97 according to the CDC. My bad.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.457910/full/ https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywhere near that many ICU beds, and there's an even more acute shortage of ventilators, a high percentage of those people wouldn't get the care they need and would therefore die - eclipsing even heart disease in the list you cite. So no, measures to reduce that exponent are not unreasonable. We need to reduce both the number of contacts people have per day and the likelihood that each contact will lead to infection. Please study some math beyond what you've only partially remembered from grade school. > You also have control over your own susceptibility and spread of something like the flu or the common cold Those are far less likely to reach a level where they require hospitalization, let alone ICU-level care. Yes, they're preventable (not 100% BTW), but there's no danger of affecting others by increasing strain on scarce hospital resources, so it's not a very constructive comparison.

sharken 7y ago

I totally agree, in case someone brings up Italy and their current number of deaths to Corona - this article describes deaths to the common flu from 2013 through 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971219303285 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121.... The numbers look like this: Season - Deaths: 2013/14 - 7,027 2014/15 - 20,259 2015/16 - 15,801 2016/17 - 24,981 What makes Corona virus trigger lockdowns and panic is that the current 3,400 deaths has happened during a short timespan. But the total number of deaths is still a factor 7 less than the 2016/17 flu season, which was not covered nearly as extensive as the current Corona virus. So while every death is tragic, the common flu is still a worse threat to the elderly and that is even though a vaccine is produced every year.

whb07 7y ago
It has been over 3 months. We are going to look back and realize this disease isn't that deadly. The places that had excessive deaths like Italy will turn out to have been poorly managed, equipped, and staffed. Not to mention other things like majority of cases being 70+ yo with 3+ diseases.
- frosted-flakes 7y ago
  But how will you know that the extreme measures weren't warranted, if they're successful? The world's leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place here: do nothing, and be known as the leader who didn't act and caused the deaths of thousands or millions. Act with appropriately extreme measures and prevent as many deaths, and everyone will think the measures weren't warranted because the measures were successful.
  - whb07 7y ago
    Because you’ll see other countries who didn’t and they aren’t dead. Not only that, is that at what point, is current and future generations well being worth to save the population that’s largely impacted by this? Meaning, it’s perverse to spend more resources on the elderly as opposed to the youth. This just dials up the perversion to an extreme.

wenc 7y ago

I think the question isn't whether we're overreacting or not (we'll never know the counterfactual), but whether our reaction produces the correct results. It seems to me that taking extreme precautions, even if in error, produces an outcome that is the lesser of evils. Let's look at scenarios for favoring not "overreacting": (this is your camp) ----- 1) If you don't take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID isn't worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy doesn't tank, life goes on. 2) If you don't take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID is worse than the flu = hospitals crumble, economy is destroyed, many deaths occur, and our way of life is over. ----- You're gambling that (1) is true. If you're right, great..... but if you're wrong, we'll end up with (2). On the other hand, here are the scenarios for the "overreacting" gamble (what we're doing now): ----- 3) If you take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID is worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy tanks but things eventually settle and there's a path to recovery. 4) If you take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID isn't worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy tanks but the virus fizzles out and things eventually return to normal. ----- This latter gamble, though expensive, provides us with a path to safety regardless of if we turn out to be right or wrong about COVID. Because we don't know enough about the virus and given the exponential spread we have to act on incomplete information, I would be in the camp of "overreacting". That said, I do sort of understand where your sentiment comes from. It is a position reinforced by a (healthy) distrust of media sensationalism, and recognition of the widespread human suffering that results from the economy tanking. I think that's a reasonable position, and one that I'm sympathetic to. However, the cost of being wrong here is just so unspeakably high that there's just greater prudence to choosing the latter (safer) path.