Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 141 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#61

Post by threatofrain »

notacoward wrote: post #58
threatofrain wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This social responsibility argument is vague and will stay there, because the flu still kills many people, so why are we letting so many people die instead of locking down? Why don't we lock down the schools for the flu to protect those who have immune weaknesses? Where's the moral line or set of criteria for when people's deaths are treated as routine numbers? When economies shut down, at some point people will also…

> because the flu still kills many people As I've already pointed out, that's a false equivalence. COVID-19 != flu. We can (and I believe should) respond differently to different things. It's so simple a child could get it.

Yes, I'm asking for what moral reasoning you use to determine that the yearly deaths attributed to the flu shouldn't warrant similar action. Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? Are you okay being a disease vector for the flu because the numbers aren't high enough for you? Is that okay for the immune-privileged?

And how many people are dying from economic damage? How does one quantify that? Does one bother to quantify that at all? Do share.

If you have a sense of moral clarity, why don't you just share it, instead of hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it?

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#63

Post by ykevinator »

notacoward wrote: post #46
chrismeller wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that we're not looking at a year's worth of data, but that was also kind of the point... we're not looking at a year's worth of data. If 97 people have died in the US so far... you've got a _long_ way to go, even looking at an exponential growth rate, to even approach the top 10 causes of death in the US. According to the CDC 47,000 people killed themselves in 2017 [1], and that's #10. Also 100% preventable.…

> even looking at an exponential growth rate, Do you know how exponential growth works? The exponent matters. A lot. There's a big difference between 1% growth per week and 10% growth every day. According to the actual math and models being used by epidemiologists, over four million people could need ICU-level care for COVID-19. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200317.45791... Since we don't have anywh…

It's amazing how many epidemiologist don't understand the difference between exponential and polynomial growth.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#64

Post by notacoward »

threatofrain wrote: post #61
notacoward wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the flu still kills many people As I've already pointed out, that's a false equivalence. COVID-19 != flu. We can (and I believe should) respond differently to different things. It's so simple a child could get it.

Yes, I'm asking for what moral reasoning you use to determine that the yearly deaths attributed to the flu shouldn't warrant similar action. Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? Are you okay being a disease vector for the flu because the numbers aren't high enough for you? Is that okay for the immune-privileged? And how many people are dying from economic damage? How does one quantify that? Does one both…

> Are the numbers there... not high enough for you?

They're not high enough to put strain on hospital resources, and therefore to move from a mostly-individual to a mostly-collective type of problem. Nobody else is likely to die because you didn't get a flu shot (BTW the existence of a vaccine is also a factor here) and tied up a ventilator that they also needed. That's a real concern with COVID-19.

> hinting that things are so obvious that a child can understand it?

I wasn't hinting.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#66

Post by whb07 »

sharken wrote: post #59
chrismeller wrote: post #16

Overall I would have to say absolutely, yes. The number of infections doesn't justify this level of panic, let alone the number of deaths. I realise there is an element of "prevention" here, but far, far more people die of very common things (flu, traffic accidents, smoking-related conditions, being overweight, etc.) in the US alone every year, some of which are also 100% preventable, than have died worldwide of coro…

I totally agree, in case someone brings up Italy and their current number of deaths to Corona - this article describes deaths to the common flu from 2013 through 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121... . The numbers look like this: Season - Deaths: 2013/14 - 7,027 2014/15 - 20,259 2015/16 - 15,801 2016/17 - 24,981 What makes Corona virus trigger lockdowns and panic is that the current 3,…

It has been over 3 months. We are going to look back and realize this disease isn't that deadly. The places that had excessive deaths like Italy will turn out to have been poorly managed, equipped, and staffed. Not to mention other things like majority of cases being 70+ yo with 3+ diseases.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#67

Post by shartshooter »

Like anything as complex as a pandemic the answer is, it depends.

Are we overreacting? That depends on what your definition is on how to react to a pandemic. On one hand we don't freak out over influenza in the same way.

Let's look at it this way: Influenza('19-'20) has a projected hospitalization:death ratio between 3.2% and 15%[1].

hospitalizations: 370,000 – 670,000 deaths: 22,000 – 55,000

COVID-19: - As of March 16, a total of 4,226 COVID-19 cases had been reported in the United States - 508 (12%) patients known to have been hospitalized[2] - 108 (21%) deaths from COVID have occurred in the US[3]

This means about 21% of those who are hospitalized in the US have died from COVID.

It's not only significant, but significantly higher than influenza.

We should be reacting to this: social distancing, monitoring symptoms and avoiding the ER and visiting doctors unless we have an emergency.

Those are things everyone can work to do although there are some folks who can't distance themselves socially(doctors, firefighters, restaurant workers, etc) and it's important the rest of us do our best to support them.

Just like some folks are allergic to vaccines, it's critical those of us that are able to get vaccines to protect those with compromised immune systems or that are unable to get the vaccine.

In short: We're not overreacting, if anything the data shows we're underreacting.

[1] - https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/preliminary-in-season-e... [2] - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm [3] - https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/coronavirus-disease-cov...

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#68

Post by threatofrain »

notacoward wrote: post #64
threatofrain wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm asking for what moral reasoning you use to determine that the yearly deaths attributed to the flu shouldn't warrant similar action. Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? Are you okay being a disease vector for the flu because the numbers aren't high enough for you? Is that okay for the immune-privileged? And how many people are dying from economic damage? How does one quantify that? Does one both…

> Are the numbers there... not high enough for you? They're not high enough to put strain on hospital resources, and therefore to move from a mostly-individual to a mostly-collective type of problem. Nobody else is likely to die because you didn't get a flu shot (BTW the existence of a vaccine is also a factor here) and tied up a ventilator that they also needed. That's a real concern with COVID-19. > hinting that th…

> You might feel you're Living Right and you're at no risk yourself, but - as has been pointed out many times but apparently not enough - It's Not Just About You. Your actions are connected to others' outcomes. There's a social responsibility to avoid becoming a vector for infection.

How is it clear that we shouldn't organize as an entire society to deal with influenza? Because hospital resources aren't taxed? That makes it enough of "your" problem vs "our" problem, when tens of thousands die per year?

Remember, when kids go to school sick, it's not some "individual" matter. Tens of thousands of people die per year from influenza. One might say it's a kind of murder. Oh wait, it's not. They're not overtaxing the medical system, what am I thinking. This is an individual matter. It's so clear now. This is truly moral clarity for children.

Lives are at stake -- so put the numbers on the table and explain who is sacrificing for whom. How many people are going to die from economic downturn? Five?

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#69

Post by conformist »

entee wrote: post #19

No. Very simply, an extreme response is required here. The most recent UCL study demonstrates that given everything we know about the virus, extreme social distancing may not even be enough [1]. Worse, if we are successful, it will look like we overreacted because the nature of exponential spread is that if you act when you’re on the steep part of the curve you’re too late. If you act beforehand, you never get to the…

*ICL study, there's a bit of friendly rivalry between ICL and UCL ;)

Otherwise, great comment!

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#70

Post by frosted-flakes »

whb07 wrote: post #66
sharken wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree, in case someone brings up Italy and their current number of deaths to Corona - this article describes deaths to the common flu from 2013 through 2017, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197121... . The numbers look like this: Season - Deaths: 2013/14 - 7,027 2014/15 - 20,259 2015/16 - 15,801 2016/17 - 24,981 What makes Corona virus trigger lockdowns and panic is that the current 3,…

It has been over 3 months. We are going to look back and realize this disease isn't that deadly. The places that had excessive deaths like Italy will turn out to have been poorly managed, equipped, and staffed. Not to mention other things like majority of cases being 70+ yo with 3+ diseases.

But how will you know that the extreme measures weren't warranted, if they're successful?

The world's leaders are stuck between a rock and a hard place here: do nothing, and be known as the leader who didn't act and caused the deaths of thousands or millions. Act with appropriately extreme measures and prevent as many deaths, and everyone will think the measures weren't warranted because the measures were successful.

Post reply on HN