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

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#81

Post by muse900 »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #54

Well, so far judging by deaths / cases on plague.com, we're looking at 4% fatality rate. The average seasonal flu fatality rate is 0.1%. The mortality rate for H1N1 was 0.02%. For Ebola, the average mortality rate is around 50%. China severely restricted travel and managed to keep the infection rate around 0.008% of their population. We're still in the early stages in the US, with about 0.00269% of the population inf…

To add to that, I was listening to an expert from Standford saying that the data set we currently have is not correct and we don't have the full picture.

We might be seeing X deaths in china but that might not be true, due to less testing etc currently, so the mortality rate is a bit skewed.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#83

Post by WorldMaker »

acarp52 wrote: post #17

It's a problem that seems to be a lot like climate change: It will be hard to objectively tell if we overreacted, because the actions taken cause a lower impact than predicted. But on the other hand, it will be pretty easy to tell if we underreacted: a catastrophe worse than projected would mean we didn't take enough action. It's so easy to be skeptical when the data is inconsistent - but it's important to be open to…

Yeah, it's hard to call anything an overreaction when a "proper" reaction will in hindsight look like an overreaction simply because it was effective.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#84

Post by Rapzid »

salmon30salmon wrote: post #41
bbimbop wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will likely regret saying this in about 5 days. It's already way too much. Call anyone in NYC if they know of a first hand case. NYC is tracking toward Italy more so than parts of China.

I work with, have family and have friends in NYC. A lot of the problems in NYC are due to the restrictions on every day life, not the virus. Don't confused the virus with the draconian restrictions we put in place. The latter are having a much larger influence.

Those restrictions are a symptom of the virus too.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#85

Post by forkexec »

Italy has a much better healthcare system than the US, and they had about 500 people die today. The US is going to be really hit hard.

I've read some of the literature on modeling the outbreak. In 45 days, the US will have no ICU beds available, basically no emergency healthcare available as it will be completely overwhelmed, and anywhere from 1-10 million will die over the successive pandemic waves within the next 18-24 months. Vaccine/s, prophylaxes and treatment protocols, in large numbers, are essential.

One of the largest dangers will be the premature reopening and lifting of shelter orders because the virus will not magically go away, and then people will abandon sensible precautions and cause a new pandemic wave that will kill untold thousands. Complacency and irresponsibility will kill many people.

Also, the Spring Break kids and the governor in Florida are beyond ignorant, they're reckless, selfish and liabilities to everyone else. One coastal Florida county's health department wasn't testing ILI patients to avoid coronavirus statistics, and preventing doctors from testing patients.

This isn't something to underestimate, because to do so would gamble your and your family's lives. Furthermore, young people are by far the greatest spreaders and also at risk for developing critical symptoms.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#86

Post by whb07 »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #70
whb07 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because you’ll see other countries who didn’t and they aren’t dead.

Not only that, is that at what point, is current and future generations well being worth to save the population that’s largely impacted by this?

Meaning, it’s perverse to spend more resources on the elderly as opposed to the youth. This just dials up the perversion to an extreme.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#87

Post by TheCoelacanth »

enchiridion wrote: post #75
TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #54

Well, so far judging by deaths / cases on plague.com, we're looking at 4% fatality rate. The average seasonal flu fatality rate is 0.1%. The mortality rate for H1N1 was 0.02%. For Ebola, the average mortality rate is around 50%. China severely restricted travel and managed to keep the infection rate around 0.008% of their population. We're still in the early stages in the US, with about 0.00269% of the population inf…

Thank you for explaining. Any idea what the mortality increase would be?

10-15% of cases require hospitalization. The US has hospital beds for about 0.2% of the population, so possibly 10% or higher mortality rate.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#88

Post by wenc »

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 think the question isn't whether we're overreacting or not (we'll never know the counterfactual), but whether our reaction produces the correct results. It seems to me that taking extreme precautions, even if in error, produces an outcome that is the lesser of evils. Let's look at scenarios for favoring not "overreacting": (this is your camp)

-----

1) If you don't take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID isn't worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy doesn't tank, life goes on.

2) If you don't take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID is worse than the flu = hospitals crumble, economy is destroyed, many deaths occur, and our way of life is over.

-----

You're gambling that (1) is true. If you're right, great..... but if you're wrong, we'll end up with (2).

On the other hand, here are the scenarios for the "overreacting" gamble (what we're doing now):

-----

3) If you take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID is worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy tanks but things eventually settle and there's a path to recovery.

4) If you take extreme precautions (overreact), and COVID isn't worse than the flu = hospitals don't crumble, economy tanks but the virus fizzles out and things eventually return to normal.

-----

This latter gamble, though expensive, provides us with a path to safety regardless of if we turn out to be right or wrong about COVID. Because we don't know enough about the virus and given the exponential spread we have to act on incomplete information, I would be in the camp of "overreacting".

That said, I do sort of understand where your sentiment comes from. It is a position reinforced by a (healthy) distrust of media sensationalism, and recognition of the widespread human suffering that results from the economy tanking. I think that's a reasonable position, and one that I'm sympathetic to. However, the cost of being wrong here is just so unspeakably high that there's just greater prudence to choosing the latter (safer) path.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#89

Post by Daishiman »

salmon30salmon wrote: post #41
bbimbop wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will likely regret saying this in about 5 days. It's already way too much. Call anyone in NYC if they know of a first hand case. NYC is tracking toward Italy more so than parts of China.

I work with, have family and have friends in NYC. A lot of the problems in NYC are due to the restrictions on every day life, not the virus. Don't confused the virus with the draconian restrictions we put in place. The latter are having a much larger influence.

The restrictions have more influence because we're not at the point where they are overwhelmed by the virus' impacts.

Re: Ask HN: Are we overreacting to coronavirus?

#90

Post by chris1993 »

WorldMaker wrote: post #83
acarp52 wrote: post #17

It's a problem that seems to be a lot like climate change: It will be hard to objectively tell if we overreacted, because the actions taken cause a lower impact than predicted. But on the other hand, it will be pretty easy to tell if we underreacted: a catastrophe worse than projected would mean we didn't take enough action. It's so easy to be skeptical when the data is inconsistent - but it's important to be open to…

Yeah, it's hard to call anything an overreaction when a "proper" reaction will in hindsight look like an overreaction simply because it was effective.

As exactly happened with Y2K
Post reply on HN