There are downsides with cancelling. The panic will get worse. I think the panic is hurting much more than the virus right now.
On the flip side, that one idiot who went to CPAC infected could have infected our entire federal government. What is preventing one idiot from out of state going to this rally and infecting almost everybody?
You say the panic is hurting, I dont actually think that is a bad thing. Italy didnt panic because the virus had only been in china at the point it hit them and it spread all over their entire country.
I'm not trying to argue, but what do you think the difference is between the US and Italy in terms of stopping the spread of the virus? Would you rather people panic, or the virus spreads ? surely stopping the virus is the main goal. look at italy, with the entire country on lockdown.
I would rather the virus spreads just like every other cold and flu and that the panic would stop tanking our economy. This is no different than any other winter except for the panic.
We know that the virus has a significantly higher mortality rate among people who are older or have compromised immune systems. Do you know what the average age of those who have died from Coronavirus in Italy is? EIGHTY ONE. Yes, 81 years old. Many of them having additional conditions.
The goal isn't stopping the virus. That's like saying we should stop the flu virus. Yeah, that's a great pipe dream but it's not going to happen. What we should focus on is the understanding who is most at risk and how those people can minimize that risk.
When you start cancelling events and pretending that everything outside the house is the end of the world, you incite panic. You get people fighting over fucking toilet paper. Is that really the best response that we want out of people?
The goal is mitigation of the virus and reducing the spread, that is all we can do. This has been demonstrated possible in South Korea where their case count which was initially growing exponentially has started to reduce, when they closed all schools, colleges etc.
Basically every country in europe has begun closing its schools, colleges, and non-essential workplaces. Its bound to happen in the US too. Why do you think the US is different, what is it that makes it any different to Europe?
What I don't get is people saying 'its not that high, there are shit loads of people who have it and dont know so they aren't counted' but isnt that the same with the common flu? You can have the common flu and still go to work, and just feel a bit feverish, right? Or am I wrong?
If you can also have symptoms of the flu and feel fine, it DOES have a far higher death rate. At that point, you can compare the two death rates.
There are downsides with cancelling. The panic will get worse. I think the panic is hurting much more than the virus right now.
On the flip side, that one idiot who went to CPAC infected could have infected our entire federal government. What is preventing one idiot from out of state going to this rally and infecting almost everybody?
It's a tough call.
You say the panic is hurting, I dont actually think that is a bad thing. Italy didnt panic because the virus had only been in china at the point it hit them and it spread all over their entire country. I'm not trying to argue, but what do you think the difference is between the US and Italy in terms of stopping the spread of the virus? Would you rather people panic, or the virus spreads ? surely stopping the virus is the main goal. look at italy, with the entire country on lockdown.
I would rather the virus spreads just like every other cold and flu and that the panic would stop tanking our economy. This is no different than any other winter except for the panic.
What actually happened in Italy though?
We know that the virus has a significantly higher mortality rate among people who are older or have compromised immune systems. Do you know what the average age of those who have died from Coronavirus in Italy is? EIGHTY ONE. Yes, 81 years old. Many of them having additional conditions.
The goal isn't stopping the virus. That's like saying we should stop the flu virus. Yeah, that's a great pipe dream but it's not going to happen. What we should focus on is the understanding who is most at risk and how those people can minimize that risk.
When you start cancelling events and pretending that everything outside the house is the end of the world, you incite panic. You get people fighting over fucking toilet paper. Is that really the best response that we want out of people?
The goal is mitigation of the virus and reducing the spread, that is all we can do. This has been demonstrated possible in South Korea where their case count which was initially growing exponentially has started to reduce, when they closed all schools, colleges etc. Basically every country in europe has begun closing its schools, colleges, and non-essential workplaces. Its bound to happen in the US too. Why do you think the US is different, what is it that makes it any different to Europe?
And then what happens when you open those schools, colleges and event back up? The infection spreads again.
What I don't get is people saying 'its not that high, there are shit loads of people who have it and dont know so they aren't counted' but isnt that the same with the common flu? You can have the common flu and still go to work, and just feel a bit feverish, right? Or am I wrong? If you can also have symptoms of the flu and feel fine, it DOES have a far higher death rate. At that point, you can compare the two death rates.
What you're describing is a far LOWER death rate. More infected, same number of deaths = lower mortality rate.