Why was there not this fear for Ebola, H1N1, swine and all the others?
Well, even though it has a higher fatality rate, Ebola is not that dangerous. It runs too quickly. It may kill a whole village, but it does it so quickly that the risk of spreading the infection outside that community is pretty low
Civil War reenactment is LARPing for people with no imagination.
Why was there not this fear for Ebola, H1N1, swine and all the others?
Some interesting reading. Also note a huge segment of society did and does think this is fake news to hurt the ratings of an orange. That really hurt the US getting in front of this
We all know who/what Trump is. Some of us like that about him. Some of us don't. Whatever the case may be...do any of you think that he would play a long if this was "fake news"? Or "nothing to fear"? He tried his best to deny it at first but then reality set in...which is YUGE for him because he lives most of his life in fantasy land.
If Donald J "Fake News" Trump is taking it seriously...you should too.
Avid Stamp Collector - I really love 39 Cent Stamps
Here is a British statistical modeling of the predicted infection rate and total deaths anticipated for both the US and UK.
Do an in-depth read with your critical analysis glasses on. This is well research paper basing their calculations on the Chinese / South Korean / Italian data.
I am not going to quote the numbers here, everyone should have read if they really want to understand where this going.
Before you write this off as fear mongering, fake news etc, understand this is a World Class Science, Engineering and Medical University by highly trained/educated statisticians and epidemiologists. This is elite level research not amateur hour stuff.
As I recall we should, by now, have many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) infected by AIDS and/or New Variant CJD. And where are the bodies of the 40,000 (UK) annually dying from air pollution?
Unfortunately researchers, no matter how well educated, are not beyond sensationalism. We need to be more pragmatic...
As I recall we should, by now, have many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) infected by AIDS and/or New Variant CJD. And where are the bodies of the 40,000 (UK) annually dying from air pollution?
Unfortunately researchers, no matter how well educated, are not beyond sensationalism. We need to be more pragmatic...
But, these victims are associated with bad behavior or simply being poor.
For some reason we have very effectively managed Ebola.
As I recall we should, by now, have many hundreds of thousands (if not millions) infected by AIDS and/or New Variant CJD. And where are the bodies of the 40,000 (UK) annually dying from air pollution?
Unfortunately researchers, no matter how well educated, are not beyond sensationalism. We need to be more pragmatic...
Wow, I couldn't disagree more. I am curious if your read the Imperial College paper completely or not.
The examples Ioannidis uses are bent to his narrative in my opinion. He believes only 1% of the US population will get Covid (3.3 Million) which he states will result in ~10,000 deaths (fatality rate of 0.3).
How is he limiting the spread to only 1%? The ability of the virus to spread is R0 (R-naught) factor. Seasonal flu is about 1.3 or for every person who has it spreads it to 1.3 people. The R0 of Covid is between 2.0 and 2.5. Which is significantly higher. Most experts, given the above R0, suggest that 35% to 70% of a general population would be infected assuming no significant containment measures were in place. This would mean 115 million Americans get it, and even at his low-ball (IMO) estimated fatality rate of 0.3%, it would be 345,000 deaths. If the more broadly accepted rate of 1% is used 1.15 million would die.
His take on how the overwhelmed health system is confusing. One only has to look at the Italian system which has been completely overwhelmed where Doctors are having to make very difficult choices who lives and who dies based on their age, health and likely outcome of survival with treatment. Italy has an excellent public health care system, that is open to all.
I understand the financial burden is unknown and undoubtedly scary. If he had advocated doing the lockdown to give us time to understand the overall data (spread rate, fatality rate etc, which is one of the themes of his article) and compare it to the economic cost 6 to 8 weeks from now I would have been more agreeable. There is a finite amount of time to contain this and that is why most governments are moving fast right now.
In regards to the video you posted, his takes on the numbers and his simple analysis is so off, I wont even bother to comment. It is reckless, uneducated drivel IMO.
In these scary days, one thing we all have to be careful of (myself included) is confirmation bias.
As per Wiki:
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias.
@CupOfJoe I agree with everything you've said, except "containment" It's already incapable of being contained. The Harvard professor stated that in February, we're already beyond the point of containment.
We're only able to mitigate the damage it will do. Here's a link to the interview he gave a month ago. [Link: news.harvard.edu]
If you don't want to read the whole article, here's the snippet.
GAZETTE: But what is most important for the public to know about this?
LIPSITCH: There’s likely to be a period of widespread transmission in the U.S., and I hope we will avert the kind of chaos that some other places are seeing. That’s likely if we continue to be prepared, but I think it’s going to be a new virus that we have to deal with. That won’t be because the United States government has failed to contain it, it will mean that this is an uncontainable virus. If we’re dealing with it, it’s because everybody’s going to be dealing with it. I think that’s a likely scenario.
@CupOfJoe I agree with everything you've said, except "containment" It's already incapable of being contained. The Harvard professor stated that in February, we're already beyond the point of containment.
We're only able to mitigate the damage it will do. Here's a link to the interview he gave a month ago. [Link: news.harvard.edu]
If you don't want to read the whole article, here's the snippet.
GAZETTE: But what is most important for the public to know about this?
LIPSITCH: There’s likely to be a period of widespread transmission in the U.S., and I hope we will avert the kind of chaos that some other places are seeing. That’s likely if we continue to be prepared, but I think it’s going to be a new virus that we have to deal with. That won’t be because the United States government has failed to contain it, it will mean that this is an uncontainable virus. If we’re dealing with it, it’s because everybody’s going to be dealing with it. I think that’s a likely scenario.
You are right, poor choice of words, I should have said 'slow the transmission rate as much as possible', the genie is out of the bottle.
The virus is serious. Be diligent as others have said.
As far as the news, they are in the ratings game, and greatly amplify that which is factual. Sensationalizing anything makes them money. Don’t believe everything you hear on the news. That’s where we go from being smart to being in panic mode.
Don’t be dumb and ignore it. But don’t overreact and believe all the news you hear.
There is no truth anymore. Only assertions. The internet world has no interest in truth, only vindication for preconceived assumptions.
This thread has been locked. Replies are not allowed at this time.
Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.
