Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, let's just wait for a million dead like they expect in Italy then... that would be a proper, timid, reaction...
You just pulled that number out of your ass, didn't you?
Feel happy now about the ad-hominem?
901–910 of 915 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, let's just wait for a million dead like they expect in Italy then... that would be a proper, timid, reaction...
You just pulled that number out of your ass, didn't you?
Feel happy now about the ad-hominem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not how epidemics work. That's not how epidemics work when they are contained quickly. Europe has done a bad job at this. Epidemics in the past have killed many times as many as the percentages above.
Different diseases, different outcomes. First, using the total population as a basis is just wrong. Some will certainly be immune to a certain degree while others are simply lucky. Even very aggressive pandemics, hitting totally ill-prepared societies didn't infect every single person. Not even the black death managed to do so. So why do you think COVID-19 would end up doing that? And using the 3.4% is another issue.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the beginning, in Wuhan.
I rather consider Wuhan to be the textbook case of a mass-panic in the face of an unknown virus. What I am primarily concerned about is the people's reaction and the economic effects which seem unprecedented (at least in recent decades). This has a much larger impact than the virus itself. Why is the effect so big compared to other pandemics? Is it because of the way infections and deaths are tracked (which might hav…
That's only because we're considering one branch in the multiverse though, right? If we get in our time machine and imagine that we didn't have the "mass-panic", then presumably the impact of the virus would therefore be much worse.
>Why is the effect so big compared to other pandemics?
Compared to the 1918 flu you mean? I guess I'm not sure what other pandemic we have had recently to compare with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for understanding the spirit of my comment. I will take this flag as a very good lesson in risk management: no matter how many times you are positive in the exchange, the one time that you strike out can be fatal.
Yes, and the effect is worse because there's a massive disconnect between how we perceive our own intent and how it comes across to readers on the internet--or at least to some segment of readers, but when the community is large enough, every segment is an entire audience.
Also, precisely due to this disconnect between what we write and how it can be perceived, it does seem helpful to me to occasionally have some curved ball thrown into the mix to help calibrate my sense of (a) where the other party is coming from and (b) check if the other party is willing to listen to you or just participate in a screaming match.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, this is really the main reason why this virus is spreading globally. In fact, the average incubation period seems to be 5 days, which is already a lot. But apparently, some subjects had an incubation period up to 24 days, if correct, this is huge and the main reason why it suddenly raised in Italy. Imagine only one relatively social person in Italy, in 24 days he/she can probably meet at least 50 perso…
Risk of infecting others when you're without symptoms is supposedly small.. I'm by no means an expert, but to me the problem seems to be lack of proactive social distancing; and lack of proactive testing of everyone with symptoms. Current guidelines seems statistically sound, it's just that we have little mitigation for the few that do slip through.
"The researchers found very high levels of virus emitted from the throat of patients from the earliest point in their illness —when people are generally still going about their daily routines"
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/people-shed-high-levels-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
National debt may be a numbers game, but it's not merely that. There's nothing simple about any ECB decision on monetary policy, and the composition of the EU when combined with the nature of the Euro is such that pain almost by definition can't be evenly distributed.
ECB already implicitly backs every country's bonds. They just need to stick to their stance. After the crisis is over there will be time to work out the cost sharing among European countries.
The ECB's balance sheets are bad enough as it is, and one country's "cost sharing" is another country's forced-austerity to bail out another country's bad loans.
The Eurosystem has serious issues that are about to get even worse. The ECB is practically insolvent by their own standards, and would be technically insolvent by American standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how much that counts since my understanding is that the president's decrees are essentially laws, and when the judicial branch said that was unconstitutional the president just ignored them. Not exactly a lot of checks and balances.
That absolutely is a (strong) Presidential Republic, a term which does not depend on checks and balances (though some Presidential Republics feature that trait.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need more fear, not less. Fear will save lives.
Not necessarily. Excess panic can easily create more destruction than the disease ever would have. Look at the hospital that was burned down in Iran because of misinformation about the coronavirus.