8 ms·

This. There is so much fear-mongering going on by "the news" it sickens me.

javagram 6y ago
Fear-mongering, or reporting the facts? Plenty of people wouldn’t know about that aspect of the disease, I’m quite happy the media isn’t trying to cover it up.
- steveeq1 6y ago
  Straw man. No one thinks the media should "cover it up". However, It would be more responsible for the media to not present the public with so much obvious misinformation about the virus.
  - acdha 6y ago
    You've been making big assertions about “misinformation”, “fear-mongering”, etc. but you haven't provided any evidence or analysis supporting those claims. Since you're taking a position which is contrary to what medical experts are saying you really need to substantially back it up.
    - zajio1am 6y ago
      From the start of epidemic in Europe, all media (that i read or listened) constantly mentioned ~5 % fatality rate (based on case reports). While WHO report from 2020-02 already reported IFR estimations 0.3% - 1.0%.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        CFR, or crude fatality rate is deaths/known infections. It is known to run high, but early on is the best we've got. That said I'm not aware of the WHO saying the IFR was .1-.3%, I've consistently seen estimates of .5-1.5%. That said, in Italy the CFR is 15%, and reasonable estimates for the IFR wouldn't be below 2%, with 5% being completely reasonable.
      - cycomanic 6y ago
        The other poster already pointed out that there is a difference between CFR and IFR (and initially CFR was reported because we did not have good estimates of CFR) The IFR for the flu is 0.1% in the bad years, and we have estimates of the IFR which are more in line with 0.9 to 1.5% (based on the antibody tests in NYC for example). That's 10 times higher, I don't know about you, but an order of magnitude is pretty significant in my book.
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Not only that, even common sense observations confirm at least 3 times higher fatality rate compared to the worst flu: Every years approx. 45000 people die from flu in US. Within 1.5 months since the surge number of deaths reached 80000. According to various estimates number of deaths in US will reach 150 thousands. So already, with all the precautions it is 3 times deadlier. Without precautions we'd have 2-3 times higher rate.
        zajio1am 6y ago
        > The other poster already pointed out that there is a difference between CFR and IFR I know the difference between CFR and IFR. But i doubt journalists who wrote about covid-19 fatality knew that, such details are too technical for mainstream media. The idea conveyed by media was simply 'most people would get it as there is no immunity, and there is ~5% fatality rate'. In that time we already have order of magnitude lower IFR estimates from WHO (e.g. from covid-19 situation report 30). > we have estimates of the IFR which are more in line with 0.9 to 1.5% (based on the antibody tests in NYC for example). In different areas it seems to be different. NYC was hit particularly bad, so it is not a good idea to generalize data from that. In Heinsberg (Germany) study, the IFR is estimated to be 0.37, although Heinsberg was also hit hard. > The IFR for the flu is 0.1% in the bad year ... That's 10 times higher, I don't know about you, but an order of magnitude is pretty significant in my book. I did not compare covid-19 to flu. It is true that covid-19 is order of magnitue worse than seasonal flu. My point was that it is order of magnitude better than media image of covid-19.
  - javagram 6y ago
    If it’s true, it’s not misinformation. The articles I’ve seen talking about this usually explain that other severe illnesses can cause such symptoms. The unusual thing about the coronavirus is that it causes severe illness in so many - resulting in not only an extraordinary number of deaths but also of other damage to the body.
- marcoperaza 6y ago
  For it to be informative, you need to provide the adequate context that explains it. "New evidence shows that coronavirus can cause long term breathing problems" suggests that this is something unique or unexpected about this, when it's really par for the course for any upper respiratory infection that takes a turn for the worse.
  - thefounder 6y ago
    >> suggests that this is something unique or unexpected about this, when it's really par for the course for any upper respiratory infection that takes a turn for the worse. I wonder why they report the number of deaths and infections. After all it's all known that viruses spread and people die from respiratory infections, right?
    - pnako 6y ago
      Framing is important. In many places the annual flu is more deadly. And all the articles about running out of space at morgues, etc. are common in winter in Europe. We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before. That the media played fear mongering is a given, that's what they always do; I suspect the new factor is social media, which has probably amplified that factor even more.
      - javagram 6y ago
        > We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before. Can I suggest some basic reasoning as to why? Do you know which countries MERS spread to and how many people died as a result of MERS since it was first identified? MERS was first identified in 2012. In 8 years, it has killed about 866 people worldwide. SARS was first identified in 2002. In 2 years, it has killed 774 people and then disappeared. SARS-Cov-2, the novel coronavirus, first appeared only 6 months ago in China. Since then, it has killed 100,000s. How can you suggest that there isn’t more cause for concern over SARS-Cov-2, considering deaths are already at over 100x the other two viruses you mention in far less time, and that this death count comes despite an incredible, unprecedented international campaign to slow the virus?
DrBazza 6y ago
That's because bad news sells, and no news doesn't. "But 87 years ago, on 18 April 1930, the BBC's news announcer had nothing to communicate. "There is no news," was the script of the 20:45 news bulletin, before piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603
- i_am_nomad 6y ago
  I can still remember, on an evening back in the 1980s, newscaster Gerrick Utley commenting on “this particularly slow news day.” Even as a dumb kid, I understood that to be a good thing. But I couldn’t have guessed how much I’d pine for another one like it the way I do now.
- pixl97 6y ago
  Eh, there was plenty of news that day, there just wasnt a global communications network to deliver it in a timely fashion.
mritun 6y ago
Fear is the right response to pneumonia. If you haven’t had it you won’t understand. I can’t swim but if you’re a swimmer you might understand a parallel - it’s like not being able to swim - your head bobbing on water surface, sometimes you can breathe other times you are just gasping. If you’re in water the people will see you’re drowning and a life guard will pull you out. Pneumonia is this “almost drowning” for weeks!and then bring barely able to breathe for months. Again: fear is exactly the right response to pneumonia!
- steveeq1 6y ago
  The vast vast majority of the cases are mild if you are strong and healthy.
  - Kaze404 6y ago
    How many people are strong and healthy?
    - kshacker 6y ago
      Ok here is a random stat, by definition itself 10% of people will be in bottom 10 percentile of the health risk profile and at huge risk. I am not countering you but the parent. Old age itself is a pre-existing condition and then we develop more for each day we live (obesity, heart attacks, diabetes). I know the numbers of true risk may be different but can we manage 5-15% of people falling extremely sick?
      - taeric 6y ago
        Strictly, this isn't right. You can have more than ten percent of a population below the tenth percentile of a measure. Consider how this stat squares the percentage of people with less than (or more than) the tenth percentile of finger count.
      - pixl97 6y ago
        The US has an enormous population of elderly, obese, and diabetics. Trying to pick a random risk factor doesn't really work.
klyrs 6y ago
During the height of the HIV epidemic, I was a teenager. A close family friend, and one of my middle school teachers died of pneumonia. The virus compromised their immune systems, that is, AIDS, and that condition led to their susceptibility to pneumonia. We've largely addressed HIV through various treatments and education (what you might call "fear-mongering" about shared needles and unprotected sex). HIV doesn't cause an obvious symptomatic response -- much like many people's experience with the novel coronavirus. But it weakens the immune system and other, otherwise harmless, infections take root and can cause significant harm.
allannienhuis 6y ago
The content of this 'news article' is an interview with a virologist with years of experience and a strong reputation among his peers. His understanding of the seriousness and his first-hand experience seem to be in pretty strong opposition to your position. How is that fear mongering by 'the news'? I don't disagree that the general news media has been as sensational as they can be (that's worked for them with all the other 'news' ) but it seems to be really dangerous to use that to downplay the actual seriousness of this pandemic.

Fear-mongering, or reporting the facts? Plenty of people wouldn’t know about that aspect of the disease, I’m quite happy the media isn’t trying to cover it up.

steveeq1 6y ago
Straw man. No one thinks the media should "cover it up". However, It would be more responsible for the media to not present the public with so much obvious misinformation about the virus.
- acdha 6y ago
  You've been making big assertions about “misinformation”, “fear-mongering”, etc. but you haven't provided any evidence or analysis supporting those claims. Since you're taking a position which is contrary to what medical experts are saying you really need to substantially back it up.
  - zajio1am 6y ago
    From the start of epidemic in Europe, all media (that i read or listened) constantly mentioned ~5 % fatality rate (based on case reports). While WHO report from 2020-02 already reported IFR estimations 0.3% - 1.0%.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      CFR, or crude fatality rate is deaths/known infections. It is known to run high, but early on is the best we've got. That said I'm not aware of the WHO saying the IFR was .1-.3%, I've consistently seen estimates of .5-1.5%. That said, in Italy the CFR is 15%, and reasonable estimates for the IFR wouldn't be below 2%, with 5% being completely reasonable.
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      The other poster already pointed out that there is a difference between CFR and IFR (and initially CFR was reported because we did not have good estimates of CFR) The IFR for the flu is 0.1% in the bad years, and we have estimates of the IFR which are more in line with 0.9 to 1.5% (based on the antibody tests in NYC for example). That's 10 times higher, I don't know about you, but an order of magnitude is pretty significant in my book.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Not only that, even common sense observations confirm at least 3 times higher fatality rate compared to the worst flu: Every years approx. 45000 people die from flu in US. Within 1.5 months since the surge number of deaths reached 80000. According to various estimates number of deaths in US will reach 150 thousands. So already, with all the precautions it is 3 times deadlier. Without precautions we'd have 2-3 times higher rate.
      - zajio1am 6y ago
        > The other poster already pointed out that there is a difference between CFR and IFR I know the difference between CFR and IFR. But i doubt journalists who wrote about covid-19 fatality knew that, such details are too technical for mainstream media. The idea conveyed by media was simply 'most people would get it as there is no immunity, and there is ~5% fatality rate'. In that time we already have order of magnitude lower IFR estimates from WHO (e.g. from covid-19 situation report 30). > we have estimates of the IFR which are more in line with 0.9 to 1.5% (based on the antibody tests in NYC for example). In different areas it seems to be different. NYC was hit particularly bad, so it is not a good idea to generalize data from that. In Heinsberg (Germany) study, the IFR is estimated to be 0.37, although Heinsberg was also hit hard. > The IFR for the flu is 0.1% in the bad year ... That's 10 times higher, I don't know about you, but an order of magnitude is pretty significant in my book. I did not compare covid-19 to flu. It is true that covid-19 is order of magnitue worse than seasonal flu. My point was that it is order of magnitude better than media image of covid-19.
- javagram 6y ago
  If it’s true, it’s not misinformation. The articles I’ve seen talking about this usually explain that other severe illnesses can cause such symptoms. The unusual thing about the coronavirus is that it causes severe illness in so many - resulting in not only an extraordinary number of deaths but also of other damage to the body.
marcoperaza 6y ago
For it to be informative, you need to provide the adequate context that explains it. "New evidence shows that coronavirus can cause long term breathing problems" suggests that this is something unique or unexpected about this, when it's really par for the course for any upper respiratory infection that takes a turn for the worse.
- thefounder 6y ago
  >> suggests that this is something unique or unexpected about this, when it's really par for the course for any upper respiratory infection that takes a turn for the worse. I wonder why they report the number of deaths and infections. After all it's all known that viruses spread and people die from respiratory infections, right?
  - pnako 6y ago
    Framing is important. In many places the annual flu is more deadly. And all the articles about running out of space at morgues, etc. are common in winter in Europe. We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before. That the media played fear mongering is a given, that's what they always do; I suspect the new factor is social media, which has probably amplified that factor even more.
    - javagram 6y ago
      > We've had SARS and MERS before (MERS is way more deadly, yet we didn't enter a global panic). There is something specific about this panic, and it's not the virus; it's a variant of something we've seen before. Can I suggest some basic reasoning as to why? Do you know which countries MERS spread to and how many people died as a result of MERS since it was first identified? MERS was first identified in 2012. In 8 years, it has killed about 866 people worldwide. SARS was first identified in 2002. In 2 years, it has killed 774 people and then disappeared. SARS-Cov-2, the novel coronavirus, first appeared only 6 months ago in China. Since then, it has killed 100,000s. How can you suggest that there isn’t more cause for concern over SARS-Cov-2, considering deaths are already at over 100x the other two viruses you mention in far less time, and that this death count comes despite an incredible, unprecedented international campaign to slow the virus?

DrBazza 6y ago

That's because bad news sells, and no news doesn't. "But 87 years ago, on 18 April 1930, the BBC's news announcer had nothing to communicate. "There is no news," was the script of the 20:45 news bulletin, before piano music was played for the rest of the 15-minute segment." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39633603

i_am_nomad 6y ago
I can still remember, on an evening back in the 1980s, newscaster Gerrick Utley commenting on “this particularly slow news day.” Even as a dumb kid, I understood that to be a good thing. But I couldn’t have guessed how much I’d pine for another one like it the way I do now.
pixl97 6y ago
Eh, there was plenty of news that day, there just wasnt a global communications network to deliver it in a timely fashion.

mritun 6y ago

Fear is the right response to pneumonia. If you haven’t had it you won’t understand. I can’t swim but if you’re a swimmer you might understand a parallel - it’s like not being able to swim - your head bobbing on water surface, sometimes you can breathe other times you are just gasping. If you’re in water the people will see you’re drowning and a life guard will pull you out. Pneumonia is this “almost drowning” for weeks!and then bring barely able to breathe for months. Again: fear is exactly the right response to pneumonia!

steveeq1 6y ago
The vast vast majority of the cases are mild if you are strong and healthy.
- Kaze404 6y ago
  How many people are strong and healthy?
  - kshacker 6y ago
    Ok here is a random stat, by definition itself 10% of people will be in bottom 10 percentile of the health risk profile and at huge risk. I am not countering you but the parent. Old age itself is a pre-existing condition and then we develop more for each day we live (obesity, heart attacks, diabetes). I know the numbers of true risk may be different but can we manage 5-15% of people falling extremely sick?
    - taeric 6y ago
      Strictly, this isn't right. You can have more than ten percent of a population below the tenth percentile of a measure. Consider how this stat squares the percentage of people with less than (or more than) the tenth percentile of finger count.
    - pixl97 6y ago
      The US has an enormous population of elderly, obese, and diabetics. Trying to pick a random risk factor doesn't really work.

klyrs 6y ago

During the height of the HIV epidemic, I was a teenager. A close family friend, and one of my middle school teachers died of pneumonia. The virus compromised their immune systems, that is, AIDS, and that condition led to their susceptibility to pneumonia. We've largely addressed HIV through various treatments and education (what you might call "fear-mongering" about shared needles and unprotected sex). HIV doesn't cause an obvious symptomatic response -- much like many people's experience with the novel coronavirus. But it weakens the immune system and other, otherwise harmless, infections take root and can cause significant harm.

allannienhuis 6y ago

The content of this 'news article' is an interview with a virologist with years of experience and a strong reputation among his peers. His understanding of the seriousness and his first-hand experience seem to be in pretty strong opposition to your position. How is that fear mongering by 'the news'? I don't disagree that the general news media has been as sensational as they can be (that's worked for them with all the other 'news' ) but it seems to be really dangerous to use that to downplay the actual seriousness of this pandemic.