9 ms·

Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist predicts a quicker coronavirus recovery: 'We're going to be fine' https://news.yahoo.com/why-nobel-laureate-predicts-q

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• psabl 7y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It is a reasonable article. The first SARS virus around 2000 was completely overhyped, the world was coming to an end back then, too. HN should be a place for collecting reasonable information, no need to suppress or censor information that does not fit your world view.
  • seren 7y ago
    I think this is a reasonable article, but the headline is a bit click baity, given what are and will be the health and economic consequences. This is not Levitt fault but the editorial choice.
  • gindely 7y ago
    This isn't like the first sars. The first sars was pretty contagious but not like sars 2. The first sars was pretty deadly but not like sars 2. The article seems reasonable, but people who are much more concerned about sars 2 than we were about sars 1 are rationally responding to very different circumstances - so I think your editorialisation misses the picture.
    • jaspax 7y ago
      You're underselling your case. COVID-19 has already killed 20x as many people as the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak, infected 40x as many, and it's still going up. Responding to this with "lol we've had this problem before" is just foolish.
    • seemslegit 7y ago
      The first SARS was actually more deadly, but less contagious.
  • tomhoward 7y ago
    Article says "We'll be fine" if we take all the right steps to stop the spread. SARS didn't affect the world remotely as seriously as COVID-19 already has.