The coronavirus

mace1229 · March 2020

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

Gern Blansten · March 2020

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The CDC estimates that there have been 20,000 to 40,000 deaths in the United States so far this year (from the flu).
Just for comparison, that's a thousand times more deaths in the United States than have been blamed on the coronavirus so far.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/09/813641072/u-s-flu-season-beginning-to-ease-modelers-say?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

/Dude... you're a smart guy. It's not about total deaths, it's about mortality rate. And this is just ramping up. We're at the end of the flu season.

Right and my point is that the mortality rate isn't too far off from the flu. Am I wrong?

I'm talking the real mortality rate which we might not even know yet except for the South Korean rate.

mrussel1 · March 2020

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

You're comparing an emerging virus vs one that has a long history of mature data to evaluate (influenza).

jeffbr · March 2020

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

How have you been able to determine the future infection numbers for COVID-19? Just curious, as this is a new virus (hence the name novel coronavirus). With no vaccine and no viral treatment, coupled with our inability to test due to lack of proper handling by the administration, we are in the dark here, and are dealing with this as it continues to spread and grow. The measures we take now are not in an attempt to cure, beat or even contain this thing. The measures we take now are in an effort to slow the transmission rate so that we can buy time for treatments to be developed, vaccines to be developed, and to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. I have no idea why you and Trump want to downplay this thing, but by downplaying or ignoring it, you contribute to a more rapid transmission rate and a higher death count. So if that's your objective, keep doing what you're doing.

myoung321 · March 2020

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

mace1229 · March 2020

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

You're comparing an emerging virus vs one that has a long history of mature data to evaluate (influenza).

I agree. This may prove to be much worse than the flu in the future. But as of today and right now, it isn't. There is no reason to do anything that you wouldn't do for the flu/ That includes travel and attending sporting events and so on.
I wouldnt travel anywhere I wouldnt want to be stuck for an additional 2 weeks though.

mrussel1 · March 2020

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

The CDC estimates that there have been 20,000 to 40,000 deaths in the United States so far this year (from the flu).
Just for comparison, that's a thousand times more deaths in the United States than have been blamed on the coronavirus so far.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/09/813641072/u-s-flu-season-beginning-to-ease-modelers-say?utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=nprnews

/Dude... you're a smart guy. It's not about total deaths, it's about mortality rate. And this is just ramping up. We're at the end of the flu season.

Right and my point is that the mortality rate isn't too far off from the flu. Am I wrong?

I'm talking the real mortality rate which we might not even know yet except for the South Korean rate.

Well it depends, if we use the SK data as the proxy, it's about 6x. If you use China, it's orders of magnitude higher. If you use Italy, which is not a closed society, it's almost 5%! They have 9000 cases and 463 deaths. So again, the data cannot be completely evaluated. You also can't say necessarily "how many people have it and don't know"... that may be true, but lots of people get influenza and that data is never collected either.

Gern Blansten · March 2020

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

you sure it's "the last time"?

myoung321 · March 2020

Gern Blansten said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

you sure it's "the last time"?

for me it is...haha

mrussel1 · March 2020

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 500,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

You're comparing an emerging virus vs one that has a long history of mature data to evaluate (influenza).

I agree. This may prove to be much worse than the flu in the future. But as of today and right now, it isn't. There is no reason to do anything that you wouldn't do for the flu/ That includes travel and attending sporting events and so on.
I wouldnt travel anywhere I wouldnt want to be stuck for an additional 2 weeks though.

I can tell you that my company and every company I work with has suspended travel. However, I will continue to travel. But I would not allow my elderly mother to travel, whereas I would normally during flu season because she gets a flu shot. While I know that's not 100%, it typically controls type A fairly well.

mace1229 · March 2020

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

I don't think that is true. Isn't the flu the influenza virus, just 1 virus? it evolves every year, but isnt it just 1 virus? I only get 1 flu shot, unless they use a wide range of vaccines in that one shot.
But that doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

jeffbr · March 2020

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

That doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

This makes no sense. The "panic" is us taking precautions such as limiting travel, practicing social distancing, better handwashing/hygiene, cover coughs and sneezes, and avoiding large gatherings. The things being done as precaution against COVID-19 are the same things which will assist in avoiding the flu. Additionally I have been vaccinated for the flu. So I don't understand how you could possibly think we're "ignoring" the flu by paying attention to COVID-19.

dignin · March 2020

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

How have you been able to determine the future infection numbers for COVID-19? Just curious, as this is a new virus (hence the name novel coronavirus). With no vaccine and no viral treatment, coupled with our inability to test due to lack of proper handling by the administration, we are in the dark here, and are dealing with this as it continues to spread and grow. The measures we take now are not in an attempt to cure, beat or even contain this thing. The measures we take now are in an effort to slow the transmission rate so that we can buy time for treatments to be developed, vaccines to be developed, and to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. I have no idea why you and Trump want to downplay this thing, but by downplaying or ignoring it, you contribute to a more rapid transmission rate and a higher death count. So if that's your objective, keep doing what you're doing.

Nice summation.

mace1229 · March 2020

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

That doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

This makes no sense. The "panic" is us taking precautions such as limiting travel, practicing social distancing, better handwashing/hygiene, cover coughs and sneezes, and avoiding large gatherings. The things being done as precaution against COVID-19 are the same things which will assist in avoiding the flu. Additionally I have been vaccinated for the flu. So I don't understand how you could possibly think we're "ignoring" the flu by paying attention to COVID-19.

I've never heard once people suggesting canceling shows because of the flu. I've never once heard people afraid that the olympics may be canceled because of the flu. I've never once heard NCAA wont happen because of the flu. I've never seen costco sell out of toilet paper and water because of the flu. I've never seen many of the things that are happening now ever before. So in my opinion, yes many people are panicking.

It is true handwashing and other precautions we should do anyway. But in my opinion there is zero reason to cancel events unless you also believe they should be canceled every flu season. Most people seem to disagree with me, and thats fine. you guys are allowed to be wrong (kidding), its just my opinion this is way overblown and people are panicking.

myoung321 · March 2020

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

, unless they use a wide range of vaccines in that one shot.

Yes,,, this is correct

Seasonal influenza shots protect against the three or four influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the season.

plus we have pneumonia vaccines you should get if in the high risk % .

Halifax2TheMax · March 2020

mace1229 said:

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

That doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

This makes no sense. The "panic" is us taking precautions such as limiting travel, practicing social distancing, better handwashing/hygiene, cover coughs and sneezes, and avoiding large gatherings. The things being done as precaution against COVID-19 are the same things which will assist in avoiding the flu. Additionally I have been vaccinated for the flu. So I don't understand how you could possibly think we're "ignoring" the flu by paying attention to COVID-19.

I've never heard once people suggesting canceling shows because of the flu. I've never once heard people afraid that the olympics may be canceled because of the flu. I've never once heard NCAA wont happen because of the flu. I've never seen costco sell out of toilet paper and water because of the flu. I've never seen many of the things that are happening now ever before. So in my opinion, yes many people are panicking.

It is true handwashing and other precautions we should do anyway. But in my opinion there is zero reason to cancel events unless you also believe they should be canceled every flu season. Most people seem to disagree with me, and thats fine. you guys are allowed to be wrong (kidding), its just my opinion this is way overblown and people are panicking.

Did you forget about the flu shot? There’s a reason you don’t hear of those things happening that you listed.

mace1229 · March 2020

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

That doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

This makes no sense. The "panic" is us taking precautions such as limiting travel, practicing social distancing, better handwashing/hygiene, cover coughs and sneezes, and avoiding large gatherings. The things being done as precaution against COVID-19 are the same things which will assist in avoiding the flu. Additionally I have been vaccinated for the flu. So I don't understand how you could possibly think we're "ignoring" the flu by paying attention to COVID-19.

I've never heard once people suggesting canceling shows because of the flu. I've never once heard people afraid that the olympics may be canceled because of the flu. I've never once heard NCAA wont happen because of the flu. I've never seen costco sell out of toilet paper and water because of the flu. I've never seen many of the things that are happening now ever before. So in my opinion, yes many people are panicking.

It is true handwashing and other precautions we should do anyway. But in my opinion there is zero reason to cancel events unless you also believe they should be canceled every flu season. Most people seem to disagree with me, and thats fine. you guys are allowed to be wrong (kidding), its just my opinion this is way overblown and people are panicking.

Did you forget about the flu shot? There’s a reason you don’t hear of those things happening that you listed.

No, but its only about 50% effective. And the flu still infects 20 million Americans. I doubt corona will reach 1/10 that number.

mace1229 · March 2020

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

, unless they use a wide range of vaccines in that one shot.

Yes,,, this is correct

Seasonal influenza shots protect against the three or four influenza viruses that research indicates will be most common during the season.

plus we have pneumonia vaccines you should get if in the high risk % .

SO they are all forms of influenza, right? Isnt that the same virus with a different genetic mutation?

myoung321 · March 2020

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

That doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

This makes no sense. The "panic" is us taking precautions such as limiting travel, practicing social distancing, better handwashing/hygiene, cover coughs and sneezes, and avoiding large gatherings. The things being done as precaution against COVID-19 are the same things which will assist in avoiding the flu. Additionally I have been vaccinated for the flu. So I don't understand how you could possibly think we're "ignoring" the flu by paying attention to COVID-19.

I've never heard once people suggesting canceling shows because of the flu. I've never once heard people afraid that the olympics may be canceled because of the flu. I've never once heard NCAA wont happen because of the flu. I've never seen costco sell out of toilet paper and water because of the flu. I've never seen many of the things that are happening now ever before. So in my opinion, yes many people are panicking.

It is true handwashing and other precautions we should do anyway. But in my opinion there is zero reason to cancel events unless you also believe they should be canceled every flu season. Most people seem to disagree with me, and thats fine. you guys are allowed to be wrong (kidding), its just my opinion this is way overblown and people are panicking.

Did you forget about the flu shot? There’s a reason you don’t hear of those things happening that you listed.

No, but its only about 50% effective. And the flu still infects 20 million Americans. I doubt corona will reach 1/10 that number.

I hope ....would be better to say than "I doubt", unless you're a viral expert

benjs · March 2020

mace1229 said:

jeffbr said:

mace1229 said:

myoung321 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

For example.....

If 200 die from coronavirus and there are 2,000 known cases that is a 10% death rate.

Except it is more likely that 20,000 people have it. That's a 1% death rate.

Even if your data is right, that's 10x higher mortality than the flu.

So if virus A has a 3% death rate and infects 1,000,000 people and 30,000 die. Virus B has a death rate of 0.1 % and infects 500,000,000 people and 700,000 die.
Everyone seems to be arguing that virus A is deadlier because of that 3%. I would argue virus B is much worse, and be much more afraid of virus B.
That's just me and a few others, seems like most want to get all worked up over virus A though.

For the last time.. the term "flu" or "B" you keep using is incorrect. What we call the seasonal flu is from numerous known viruses, not 1 virus.............Covid19 is 1 NEW virus

That doesn't matter with the point I am trying to make. People are panicking over this and continuing to ignore the "flu" which in my opinion makes zero sense.

This makes no sense. The "panic" is us taking precautions such as limiting travel, practicing social distancing, better handwashing/hygiene, cover coughs and sneezes, and avoiding large gatherings. The things being done as precaution against COVID-19 are the same things which will assist in avoiding the flu. Additionally I have been vaccinated for the flu. So I don't understand how you could possibly think we're "ignoring" the flu by paying attention to COVID-19.

I've never heard once people suggesting canceling shows because of the flu. I've never once heard people afraid that the olympics may be canceled because of the flu. I've never once heard NCAA wont happen because of the flu. I've never seen costco sell out of toilet paper and water because of the flu. I've never seen many of the things that are happening now ever before. So in my opinion, yes many people are panicking.

It is true handwashing and other precautions we should do anyway. But in my opinion there is zero reason to cancel events unless you also believe they should be canceled every flu season. Most people seem to disagree with me, and thats fine. you guys are allowed to be wrong (kidding), its just my opinion this is way overblown and people are panicking.

The flu has known transmissibility patterns. The flu has a preventative shot. The flu has a treatment if you get it. The flu has years of research behind it in how it changes. The flu vaccine has already been synthesized. The flu has a lower death rate. The flu has confirmable mortality rates.

My opinion - let people set their own comfort levels, mitigate the way they want, and unless they're endangering someone else's life, who cares? There's enough uncertainty surrounding this (and even if we disagree with the scope we should agree about the uncertainty), that caution is a fair response.

The coronavirus

Comments

Categories