5 ms·

> "This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents." no, it's 1-4 per million[0], so basically inconsequential relative to the (low) ~h

> "This study ballparks it around 10-20 deaths per year per 100k residents." no, it's 1-4 per million[0], so basically inconsequential relative to the (low) ~hundreds per million who typically die each year. dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. [0] based on seizethecheese's quote, as i couldn't read the paper directly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24180543

serf 6y ago
>dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. these kind of statistics are not for personal caution, they're for risk assessment and public policy. 141 total infant botulism cases were reported in 2017 -- it still warranted a report and investigation work in order to assess the possibility of future problems that stem from the case, spread characteristics, etc.[0] My point being : the rarity and generalized 'total danger' of an event should not determine whether or not it is investigated by public-policy makers and groups like the CDC/WHO. Another facet never mentioned : sporting event-acquired flu is really low on the list of dangers to prioritize, you probably won't be bothered by it -- but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. It always did, of course, but now people have actionable data about it. So, sure, event acquired flu is really rare -- but I bet more people than before will now consider this when planning the trip with or around people with compromised immune systems. [0]:https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html
- pochamago 6y ago
  "but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher" Or lower. I would say that these numbers are actually smaller than my intuition suggested.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "...they're for risk assessment and public policy." even for that, it's inconsequential. there are many greater and more relevant risks to worry about at a policy level. food-borne botulism has a different risk profile in that the ever-increasing centralization of food distribution can potentially unbound those risks. > "...another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. ...more people than before will now consider this when..." that's just fear-mongering. the risks of incidental/accidental deaths are the lowest in history. there's no reason to worry about this particular issue outside of research.
  - wesleywt 6y ago
    While you are inserting the worry here. I think a person who is susceptible to flu, such as the aged, should be aware that they should probably get a flu shot before they go to their favourite team that has lost for the last 50 years. Otherwise they might not make it to the day they finally win.
    - clairity 6y ago
      that's exactly the point: the vulnerable should get vaccinated because the flu can kill you anywhere, not specifically because you might get the flu at a game. that latter sort of reasoning is irrational because the added risk is inconsequential relative to the overall risk. you shouldn't try to time the shot to right before going to games, because that's irrational. get it before the flu season, and then this tiny added risk matters even less.

serf 6y ago

>dying from sporting event-acquired flu is really, really low on the list of dangers to worry about. worry about the trip getting there instead, if you must worry. these kind of statistics are not for personal caution, they're for risk assessment and public policy. 141 total infant botulism cases were reported in 2017 -- it still warranted a report and investigation work in order to assess the possibility of future problems that stem from the case, spread characteristics, etc.[0] My point being : the rarity and generalized 'total danger' of an event should not determine whether or not it is investigated by public-policy makers and groups like the CDC/WHO. Another facet never mentioned : sporting event-acquired flu is really low on the list of dangers to prioritize, you probably won't be bothered by it -- but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. It always did, of course, but now people have actionable data about it. So, sure, event acquired flu is really rare -- but I bet more people than before will now consider this when planning the trip with or around people with compromised immune systems. [0]:https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/botulism/surv/2017/index.html

pochamago 6y ago
"but the existence of yet another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher" Or lower. I would say that these numbers are actually smaller than my intuition suggested.
clairity 6y ago
> "...they're for risk assessment and public policy." even for that, it's inconsequential. there are many greater and more relevant risks to worry about at a policy level. food-borne botulism has a different risk profile in that the ever-increasing centralization of food distribution can potentially unbound those risks. > "...another now-quantified danger does nudge your average 'danger score' higher. ...more people than before will now consider this when..." that's just fear-mongering. the risks of incidental/accidental deaths are the lowest in history. there's no reason to worry about this particular issue outside of research.
- wesleywt 6y ago
  While you are inserting the worry here. I think a person who is susceptible to flu, such as the aged, should be aware that they should probably get a flu shot before they go to their favourite team that has lost for the last 50 years. Otherwise they might not make it to the day they finally win.
  - clairity 6y ago
    that's exactly the point: the vulnerable should get vaccinated because the flu can kill you anywhere, not specifically because you might get the flu at a game. that latter sort of reasoning is irrational because the added risk is inconsequential relative to the overall risk. you shouldn't try to time the shot to right before going to games, because that's irrational. get it before the flu season, and then this tiny added risk matters even less.