5 ms·
I know I'm less afraid of it. More contagious generally means less deadly.
by rubyist5eva 6y ago
I know I'm less afraid of it. More contagious generally means less deadly.
- arcturus17 6y agoThis sounds scientifically rigorous.
- rubyist5eva 6y agoAbout as rigorous as the fear mongering in the media right now.
- jmnicolas 6y agoI almost stopped commenting about it on HN, it feels like a wall of downvotes if you don't agree with the mainstream opinion.
- thatguy0900 6y agoWe will have some very interesting textbooks about the mainstream public response to this in 50 years, I'm sure.
- anonunivgrad 6y agoDoubtful. The victors write the history. The Church of “If It Saves Even One Life” and “Anti-Lockdown and Anti-Maskers are Murderers” are clearly the victors in this timeline. Your children and grandchildren will be taught about the backwards racists who were willing to sacrifice old people in the name of money, but how the fascist Donald Trump was finally defeated by the forces of democracy and justice and health was restored.
- thatguy0900 6y agoWell, I agree with you on trump but I feel like the people who have to live with the economic reality of all the mom and pop stores never reopening in favor of big international companies wont be very happy with us
- agildehaus 6y agoAt what point AREN'T you contributing to the deaths if at the very least you can't even wear a piece of cloth over your face?
- anonunivgrad 6y agoThe places with the strictest mask orders are having surges in cases just the same. E.g. California hospitalizations per capita are now far outpacing Florida. Masks work, kind of, I’m sure, under very particular conditions. But the net effect seems to be minimal.
- newacct583 6y agoWhy this comment? The very article linked is actually a solid, dispassionate treatment of questions exactly like this. It's not "fear mongering" at all, by any definition I'd be comfortable with. I think the media on the whole is doing a great job here, personally. Is there any particular "fear mongering" you'd like to call out?
- throwaway4good 6y agoThe virus is already not deadly enough to kill itself as about 1/2 of the hosts have no symptoms.
- Asraelite 6y agoIs there any data yet on the exact change in deadliness?
- dgritsko 6y agoMy understanding was that because this virus can spread presymptomatically or even asymptomatically, there is little or no evolutionary pressure for it to become less deadly. It can easily spread to many people before the host even knows that they have it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but if that is the case then it would seem that the normal "rules" for the virus becoming less deadly over time don't really apply.
- Johnjonjoan 6y agoYou're right for the short term but (in the hypothetical case it becomes deadlier) once we are aware it has becomes deadlier, our behaviour will change and reduce transmission.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- parliament32 6y agoThere's also no evolutionary incentive for it to be more deadly either. From the perspective of the virus, it has no incentive to kill its host -- if anything, it would want to keep them alive (and functioning) for as long as possible.