6 ms·

The flu once mutated to be very deadly, and there's no particular reason it couldn't happen again. For all anybody really knows, the next super deadly flu stra

The flu once mutated to be very deadly, and there's no particular reason it couldn't happen again. For all anybody really knows, the next super deadly flu strain might show up tomorrow. Are you going to spend your life terrified of this "what if" scenario too?

awb 5y ago
Preparing for the worst and mitigating risk != being terrified
- WaitWaitWha 5y ago
  I thought this for a long long time too. I have come to realize I was wrong. If we humans always prepare for the worse, then indeed we will always be terrified. There is no way for us (I know for me) to decouple the nightmarish scenarios I ingested and prepared for, from my emotions. I want to be Spock [0], but I am not. I cannot be on the edge 24/7. I did that for decades (for work & life), it kills me and everyone around me. There is no way to enjoy this great world we live in. So, what do I do? I try to find a "good enough" preparedness for me personally, and my family. Where is that "good enough" for me? It is just a touch more than the average preparedness. I do not have a bomb shelter, but I do have a "breakdown box" in my vehicles; I do not have hidden caches of food, ammo, household needs, but I have a well stacked pantry; and, so on. [^0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock
- t-writescode 5y ago
  That depends on the level of preparation and the steps taken to mitigate risk. Further, sometimes those levels of preparation and mitigation are actually more harmful than the danger itself.
  - awb 5y ago
    That’s true. It’s a cost/benefit, risk/reward calculation that everyone needs to make.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      The subtext on all these discussions is generally mandates, so we're talking about a risk/reward calculation made on our behalf, not by us individually.
      - awb 5y ago
        Yeah societies have to continually make decisions for the benefit of the group that affect the individual. Taxes, military, traffic laws, etc.
- RobertMiller 5y ago
  So were you going through life wearing a mask to mitigate the risk of a deadly flu in 2018 and before? I think probably not, but if your priority is risk mitigation, shouldn't you have been? Risk mitigation is not my priority. If it were, I'd never ride my bike again, even with my helmet. I'd never go kayaking, or rock climbing. I wouldn't swim in lakes, and you'd never catch me in the ocean. If I were preparing for the worst, I'd go everywhere with a tourniquet in my back pocket, keep a few thousand dollars cash in my shoe, and get myself vaccinated for rabies right now. I have no intent to do any of these things, because such fretting every possibility is no way to live.
  - awb 5y ago
    > So were you going through life wearing a mask to mitigate the risk of a deadly flu in 2018 and before? I think probably not, but if your priority is risk mitigation, shouldn't you have been? No because those flu viruses were not novel, or as deadly. When there is a large degree of uncertainty (like a deadly novel virus), I personally tend towards caution and am fine being too cautious rather than not cautious enough. If you don’t, that’s fine and that’s your choice. The lifestyle examples you give are too simplistic. I’m willing to bet you’re willing to ride your bike on some roads and not others, or swim at some beaches in some weather conditions and not others. To act like you never assess the situation or act in a way that mitigates your risk is absurd. I bet you wear a seatbelt on occasion and look both ways when crossing the road. Those are risk mitigation techniques.
    - RobertMiller 5y ago
      > No because those flu viruses were not novel, or as deadly. That information always lags reality. When/if the next deadly flu strain emerges, it will have emerged before it is discovered to have emerged. If you're not planning for this scenario, are you really planning for the worst case? You could be Patient Zero for Spanish Flu Part Two, with your preemptive masking being the difference between global disaster and nothingburger.
      - awb 5y ago
terminatornet 5y ago
JaimeThompson 5y ago
>Are you going to spend your life terrified of this "what if" scenario too? This might be worth reviewing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- tptacek 5y ago
  The sentiment could have been worded better, but the principle cuts both ways, and you could opt to (charitably) read it as a sincere, well-intentioned challenge to the assumptions that govern how we respond to risks. "Terrified" was definitely not the best word; bad word choices happen! These COVID threads are almost always garbage, but we can't make them better by throttling people for writing snarkily; if there's something of value to take from a comment on these threads, everyone will have to do the work of mining it out.
somewhereoutth 5y ago
I merely stated the facts as best we currently understand them. No policy or individual suggestions were made! Given the nature of your response, I suspect that you are in denial to a large extent. Regarding the flu - indeed this was expected to be the next pandemic, but the lowly coronavirus got there first! Should there be a deadly flu outbreak, or even another coronavirus, I hope our response will be less politicized and more effective.

awb 5y ago

Preparing for the worst and mitigating risk != being terrified

WaitWaitWha 5y ago
I thought this for a long long time too. I have come to realize I was wrong. If we humans always prepare for the worse, then indeed we will always be terrified. There is no way for us (I know for me) to decouple the nightmarish scenarios I ingested and prepared for, from my emotions. I want to be Spock [0], but I am not. I cannot be on the edge 24/7. I did that for decades (for work & life), it kills me and everyone around me. There is no way to enjoy this great world we live in. So, what do I do? I try to find a "good enough" preparedness for me personally, and my family. Where is that "good enough" for me? It is just a touch more than the average preparedness. I do not have a bomb shelter, but I do have a "breakdown box" in my vehicles; I do not have hidden caches of food, ammo, household needs, but I have a well stacked pantry; and, so on. [^0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock
t-writescode 5y ago
That depends on the level of preparation and the steps taken to mitigate risk. Further, sometimes those levels of preparation and mitigation are actually more harmful than the danger itself.
- awb 5y ago
  That’s true. It’s a cost/benefit, risk/reward calculation that everyone needs to make.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    The subtext on all these discussions is generally mandates, so we're talking about a risk/reward calculation made on our behalf, not by us individually.
    - awb 5y ago
      Yeah societies have to continually make decisions for the benefit of the group that affect the individual. Taxes, military, traffic laws, etc.
RobertMiller 5y ago
So were you going through life wearing a mask to mitigate the risk of a deadly flu in 2018 and before? I think probably not, but if your priority is risk mitigation, shouldn't you have been? Risk mitigation is not my priority. If it were, I'd never ride my bike again, even with my helmet. I'd never go kayaking, or rock climbing. I wouldn't swim in lakes, and you'd never catch me in the ocean. If I were preparing for the worst, I'd go everywhere with a tourniquet in my back pocket, keep a few thousand dollars cash in my shoe, and get myself vaccinated for rabies right now. I have no intent to do any of these things, because such fretting every possibility is no way to live.
- awb 5y ago
  > So were you going through life wearing a mask to mitigate the risk of a deadly flu in 2018 and before? I think probably not, but if your priority is risk mitigation, shouldn't you have been? No because those flu viruses were not novel, or as deadly. When there is a large degree of uncertainty (like a deadly novel virus), I personally tend towards caution and am fine being too cautious rather than not cautious enough. If you don’t, that’s fine and that’s your choice. The lifestyle examples you give are too simplistic. I’m willing to bet you’re willing to ride your bike on some roads and not others, or swim at some beaches in some weather conditions and not others. To act like you never assess the situation or act in a way that mitigates your risk is absurd. I bet you wear a seatbelt on occasion and look both ways when crossing the road. Those are risk mitigation techniques.
  - RobertMiller 5y ago
    > No because those flu viruses were not novel, or as deadly. That information always lags reality. When/if the next deadly flu strain emerges, it will have emerged before it is discovered to have emerged. If you're not planning for this scenario, are you really planning for the worst case? You could be Patient Zero for Spanish Flu Part Two, with your preemptive masking being the difference between global disaster and nothingburger.
    - awb 5y ago

terminatornet 5y ago

JaimeThompson 5y ago

>Are you going to spend your life terrified of this "what if" scenario too? This might be worth reviewing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

tptacek 5y ago
The sentiment could have been worded better, but the principle cuts both ways, and you could opt to (charitably) read it as a sincere, well-intentioned challenge to the assumptions that govern how we respond to risks. "Terrified" was definitely not the best word; bad word choices happen! These COVID threads are almost always garbage, but we can't make them better by throttling people for writing snarkily; if there's something of value to take from a comment on these threads, everyone will have to do the work of mining it out.

somewhereoutth 5y ago

I merely stated the facts as best we currently understand them. No policy or individual suggestions were made! Given the nature of your response, I suspect that you are in denial to a large extent. Regarding the flu - indeed this was expected to be the next pandemic, but the lowly coronavirus got there first! Should there be a deadly flu outbreak, or even another coronavirus, I hope our response will be less politicized and more effective.