3 ms·

It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is alway

It's a meta-study looking at over 67 papers that address the question of the spread of respiratory viruses. Obviously, every virus is a new virus, that is always a problem. Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. The article is a specious disaster. Why do we treat the virus like a black swan event, but not the unprecedented response of shutting economic and civil liberty down to a degree maybe not seen in 100 years? An extreme provokes an extreme response? Of course? Human lives are more important than economies. And economies can't function with massive loss of life anyway. Even more, this is a massive exogenous shock. Once it's done, the various players can pick up the pieces. Until then, it should be treated like a war. Society trumps economics (hopefully, otherwise both are headed for disaster, 1 million deaths+ was the Imperial College Report estimate for what happens if the US does nothing).

Barrin92 7y ago
>Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120) This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places. There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  Doesn’t influenzas cause a pandemic every year? I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Yes, influenza causes over 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die-of-influenza-worldwide-than-who-estimated https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    That's broadly correct, although most definitions of "pandemic" jump through some hoop or another to make seasonal flu not count.
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Science is a means of discovering the most likely state of things and an always uncertain one. Other human institutions have to come into play when it is necessary to act. Those institutions make the trade-off rather simply calculating them. In the current context, the institution of a war is appropriate (more appropriate than all the semi-wars we've had over the last 50 years in fact, better than "war on drugs" or "war on terror"). We confronted by tiny semi-living creature that happens to be very good at killing us. We should band together and engage in unified, determined action to protect ourselves. As far the economy goes - the economy is a phenomena of society. The productive machinery should kept going as much as practical and the entire process managed by the government, essentially a machinery akin to WWII needs to be in place for the duration of this. Such war measures kept things running at that time and there's little reason to think they wouldn't work today. Now, as far as lots of people losing their investment. Well, sorry, investments aren't life. This, in a sense, very quick trip from 1929 to 1948 for y'all.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    But the government isn't aiming to keep the productive machinery going as much as possible. They're doing precisely the opposite, shutting down productive machinery as much as possible.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- loopz 7y ago
  Bogus wars against viruses would've been totally unnecessary if leaders had prepared for this eventuality and not shutting down long-term preparedness. Look at this as payback with interest to that debt. Waiting for evidence would lead to worse handling, and shut everything down during panic time instead. Ensuring even worse outcomes.

Barrin92 7y ago

>Yeah, and if any of those other viruses caused a world wide pandemic, I missed it. They do actually. Several of the outbreaks studied among the papers were influenza pandemics, coronavirus pandemics, and SARS. (page ~110-120) This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Which may, in fact, be literal war in some places. There is a trade-off between the economic effects and response to the virus. It is not a binary question.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
Doesn’t influenzas cause a pandemic every year? I’ve read from various sources influenza cause multiple hundred-thousand deaths every year.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Yes, influenza causes over 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die-of-influenza-worldwide-than-who-estimated https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/cdc-says-more-people-die...
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  That's broadly correct, although most definitions of "pandemic" jump through some hoop or another to make seasonal flu not count.
joe_the_user 7y ago
This rhetoric you're starting here about bringing out the war drums to fight invisible enemies is exactly what Ioannidis is afraid of. It is not scientific, it is not based on evidence, and it does not, weigh the tail risk of a global economic breakdown. Science is a means of discovering the most likely state of things and an always uncertain one. Other human institutions have to come into play when it is necessary to act. Those institutions make the trade-off rather simply calculating them. In the current context, the institution of a war is appropriate (more appropriate than all the semi-wars we've had over the last 50 years in fact, better than "war on drugs" or "war on terror"). We confronted by tiny semi-living creature that happens to be very good at killing us. We should band together and engage in unified, determined action to protect ourselves. As far the economy goes - the economy is a phenomena of society. The productive machinery should kept going as much as practical and the entire process managed by the government, essentially a machinery akin to WWII needs to be in place for the duration of this. Such war measures kept things running at that time and there's little reason to think they wouldn't work today. Now, as far as lots of people losing their investment. Well, sorry, investments aren't life. This, in a sense, very quick trip from 1929 to 1948 for y'all.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  But the government isn't aiming to keep the productive machinery going as much as possible. They're doing precisely the opposite, shutting down productive machinery as much as possible.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
loopz 7y ago
Bogus wars against viruses would've been totally unnecessary if leaders had prepared for this eventuality and not shutting down long-term preparedness. Look at this as payback with interest to that debt. Waiting for evidence would lead to worse handling, and shut everything down during panic time instead. Ensuring even worse outcomes.