The coronavirus

dignin

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

Matts3221

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher. 

it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.

if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders. 

this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are). 

and that idiot president is making it worse. 

+1

and saved me from having to type a near exact response.

mrussel1

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't even know of people who are panicking.  It seems like people equate "news coverage" with "panic".  

mace1229

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher. 

it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.

if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders. 

this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are). 

and that idiot president is making it worse. 

The vast majority of people do survive plane crashes. Most "crashes" dont even have any fatalities at all. You only hear about the ones that take a nose dive and everyone dies though. There are plenty of "fender benders" when it comes to planes. 

dignin

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't even know of people who are panicking.  It seems like people equate "news coverage" with "panic".  

I guess it buys into the "fake news" narrative. I really don't know.

Also, we live in an age where "regular" people don't want to be told by the "elites" what they should do.

mace1229

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill.
We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be.  Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.

mace1229

Back to plane crashes
https://flyfright.com/statistics/   took a source from NTSB
2012-216 a total of 140 plane accidents in the States. Only 2 of which were fatal, that lead to a total of 9 deaths. I don't know ho wmany total passengers were on those 140 flights, but the death rate of a plane crash is probably less than 0.1%. So if youve been in a plane crash in the USA since 2012, you have a 99% + chance of surviving that crash.

HughFreakingDillon

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

it IS more deadly. it is at least as contagious, possibly more contagious. the death rate is 20 times higher. 

it's like when people say "don't be afraid of flying, you are more likely to die in car accident than a plane crash". not totally true. sure, i'm in a car several times a day, and a plane once or twice a year. so if you are talking how many times I get in a car vs how many times I get in a plane and take that as your comparison, sure, but that's comparing apples to oranges. so I'm also less likely to die by swallowing sword on fire, since I never do that either.

if all things were equal, the death toll in a plane would be infinitely higher. it's not safer than a car, you just don't travel by plane nearly as much as by car. people rarely survive plane crashes. there are no airplane fender benders. 

this virus is way deadlier than the seasonal flu. does it match the hysteria? not quite. But it's not to be written off as "nothing" quite yet (which you aren't, but others are). 

and that idiot president is making it worse. 

The vast majority of people do survive plane crashes. Most "crashes" dont even have any fatalities at all. You only hear about the ones that take a nose dive and everyone dies though. There are plenty of "fender benders" when it comes to planes. 

fine, even if you disagree with my analogy (I've never heard of airplane fender benders, and I'm talking about problems while in the air, like when you're driving, not on the tarmac, like in your driveway), the point still stands. If you are current infection rates, yes, it would be considered less deadly. If you consider the percentage of fatalities of those who contract it, coupled with how contagious it is, it is highly deadlier. 

mace1229

Side note- I love this show called Air Disasters. Its a documentary about plane crashes, and goes into the investigations about what causes them. I find that sort of thing interesting. 

Matts3221

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill.
We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be.  Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.

This is due to a lack of testing units , they are hoping by the end of week to have more test more of the public. Also to have them not have to be flown to a few CDC sites as this can then take 3-4 days before test results are available.

Not panicking we just are not prepared for this new mutated form of virus( Convid-19)

Tristelune

It will come and it will spread. Nothing to worry too much about, many of the diagnosed people weren’t actually sick but got to know they had  the virus because they were close to a symptomathic person. (Wether old or with a chronic disease in most cases)
The medias handling is ridiculously hair-raising and poorly informative to the point you’ve  got to make your own researches to have a clear Idea of the symptoms. 

Not worried but there’s a lot to learn from what’s going on.

lastexitlondon

85 cases uk.  And no hand gel ,soap,or any surface sprays on shelves . Panic buying  is happening here too

pjl44

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill.
We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be.  Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.

Are you sure they didn't say 160 kits? Each kit can test 700-800 patients.

mace1229

pjl44 said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill.
We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be.  Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.

Are you sure they didn't say 160 kits? Each kit can test 700-800 patients.

That actually makes a lot more sense. He probably did say kits. Thanks for clarifying. 

pjl44

mace1229 said:

pjl44 said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

I think this should be taken seriously. But at the same time I don't understand the hysteria or the need to cancel major events. To me this seems to be played up by nearly every news and public organization. I don't agree that it is deadlier than the flu, it is not.
9 people have died in the US, that is all. There are 120 known cases, so even using 7.5% death rate for US I don't see how that makes it deadlier. Really for 2 reasons.
1) We have no idea if that number is anywhere near accurate. We don't know how many people are undiagnosed, how many are asymptomatic. That number can be off by 10, even 100 times or more. We really just have no idea.
2) Assume those numbers are correct. How is that more deadly? Disease A infects 120 people and 9 die. Disease B infects 18 million people and 18,000 die. Which is more deadly, A or B? I would argue B every single time. Sure, disease A had a higher "death rate," but in no way would I consider it more deadly. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously. But just don't see it warranting canceling major events or the hysteria that is starting to pop up. The morning news told me to go to the store and buy a week's worth of food, water and supplies just in case. Seriously? 

Shouldn't you always have a week's worth of food in your house? I don't think that's hysteria.

And the US is only seeing the start of this so your numbers comparing this to a whole flu season pretty off.

I suggest everyone listen to the professionals.

I agree. That was part of my point though, we just don't know. But even China doesn't have number that compare to the flu. So treating it like its the next plaque also seems excessive. 

Having a regular supply of food and the local news (of a state where we haven't even seen 1 case yet) encouraging people to stock up on toilet paper, wipes, food and bottles water (we've never had an issue with tap water here by the way) seems like 2 completely different things.

I am a professional....just not om this subject. Does that count?

Sorry, doesn't count. 

Many people dedicate their life to studying these things. None of them are saying we should panic, but they are saying we should be prepared. I don't know why anyone would push against being prepared for the worst case scenario. Sounds reasonable to me.

When stores like Costco are selling out of toilet paper and the local news is telling you to stock up on water bottles, even though the water is fine, I'm just saying I think that is a little overkill.
We should be concerned and be prepared and do our best to stay healthy, partly because we don't know how bad it really is. I just think it is being a little played up, things don't seem to match. Just today my governor said they plan to have 160 tests per day available. That doesn't add up to me. If this is worse than the flu, 160 tests a day is nothing. We should be testing everyone with a fever and even cold symptoms if we are supposed to be as worried as many say we should be.  Testing 160 people a day is going to do absolutely nothing if this is half of what the flu is. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I'm just saying why should we stock up on water, but then have virtually no plan to test? Why are we freaking out over this and not doing the same for the flu? If we're selling out of masks for this, we should be encouraging it for the flu too. It doesn't seem level to me.

Are you sure they didn't say 160 kits? Each kit can test 700-800 patients.

That actually makes a lot more sense. He probably did say kits. Thanks for clarifying. 

I would have assumed the same thing before I saw someone else link to this. One kit sounds like an individual test. You'd like to see public officials call that out so people don't freak out.

Halifax2TheMax

Meanwhile, the VP in charge of the Coronavirus response is telling America that any American who wants to be tested can be. Too bad all will be forgotten in a week or so.

Halifax2TheMax

Since the first Coronavirus death six days ago, there’s been 11 confirmed deaths in the US in six days. Meanwhile, Congress is about to vote on an approximately $8 billion dollar emergency response package while 109 people per day die from guns, 654 since the first Coronavirus death, if the daily tally has been accurate. Yet nothing can be done, money shouldn’t be allocated to address the issue or any effort made to stop the carnage.

Don’t forget your body armor and bullet resistant back pack on your way to work or school or movie theater, restaurant or concert venue. Forget sanitizer and masks, body armor is where it’s at.

Spiritual_Chaos

52 in Sweden now.  Damn people skiing in Italy.

rhanishane

The panic buying in Australia is beyond a joke seriously. There's no toilet paper anywhere it's become a meme hahaha

HesCalledDyer

Thoughts_Arrive said:

People are so stupid.
And Asians are being abused in public here, even if they are not from China.
A fellow student from Malaysia had some guy giving her stupid comments after she sneezed on public transport.

So that kinda shit is not just a White America thing.  That's awful.