MWONE wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:50 am
KlangFool wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:24 am
MWONE wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2020 8:10 am
I guess it is a matter of perception. Yes, I do think it is being overhyped as compared to other viruses in the past, and the market is reacting accordingly. That said, I also realize I could be wrong and will keep an open mind and will follow all safety guidelines.
As I had said before, I do not care about the media at all.
As for you, do you believe that it is "just the flu" for everyone to shut down the schools, sports, and so on? This is unprecedented. We do not do this as compared to all other viruses. They could not be all crazy and caught up with some kind of hype.
No, I do not think this is "just the flu", I think this a new virus that needs to be dealt with. So far, I think the reaction is like dropping a bomb to kill a knat. The shutting down of EVERYTHING will lead to an economic fallout that in my opinion will be troubling. And now that the precedent has been set, is this how all future viruses will be handled? As others have said, we live in a world now that sometimes it is more important to cover your butt than to be criticized. But, as I said, I think it is important for those who might share my opinion to go forward as if this might be a new and different reality, and do what it takes to protect yourself and others.
I for one am glad I don't have to make these decisions. The problem is that for an epidemic as rapidly spreading as this, in order for an isolation policy to be effective, it has to be early and it has to be extreme. Education and hoping that people will do the right thing is not enough in my opinion. Half measures are near worthless when it comes to extremely contagious infectious disease. Even under mandatory isolation policies, people are notoriously non-complaint. During SARS, there was a mandatory quarantine in Toronto, and studies estimate that only 57% of people actually complied with it (which in itself can be an argument against it honestly).
If you believe that the difference between Wuhan case fatality rate of 5% vs 0.9% outside of China was due to strict and earlier isolation policies, that's a pretty huge deal. Say 10% of the US population contracts Covid19, which is about 32 million people (for reference, H1N1 ultimately thought to have infected around 60 million in the US based on CDC numbers). The difference between a 5% mortality and a 1% mortality is 1,280,000 lives. We are not talking about small numbers here.
On the flip side, as you mention, extreme isolation policies also have other big effects that have to be weighed also, both on the economy and people's personal lives.
The problem is there is no time to think or to do studies. There is no way to try something weaker, then switch to something stronger later on. You either have to do it or don't do it. You either need to drop the bomb or you don't. And there are arguments to be made for both sides.
And the problem is that if you drop the bomb and then it turns out that it wasn't too bad, there will be people who will ridicule you by saying it was unnecessary, even though it is possible that your actions were the reason everything turned out well. But it's also possible that your actions had nothing to do with the good outcome.
Unfortunately, probably the only way you get credit for being right is if you don't do anything and then 1,000,000 people die. Then you can say I told you so, but that's a high price to pay.
For your question about future viruses, it will depend on the individual situation. Different viruses have different characteristics, and need to be dealt with in different ways. H1N1 is different than SARS which is different than COVID19 which is different than the next one.