4 ms·

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?

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?