you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Good post. I think 1 and 2 are the most likely possibilities.

Also I want to add there are now 3 or 4 strains of it that have evolved since it started. And some of those strains are more deadly than others. And some they have tests for, and some they don't.

In the US they have not been screening incoming flight passengers. There is very much a normalcy bias. I think a lot of people don't want to "encourage panic" but that shouldn't come at the expense of keeping people entirely in the dark, in case this is a serious threat, people should perhaps begin to prepare and have knowledge for that, so it's not a shock surprise if it ends up being a big deal. Which that itself could cause problems.

In the US they've also basically given up on even trying to test large numbers of people. Washington state apparently admitted it has entered the "community spread" phase there, more or less. It almost feels like the US is trying to spread it, they're doing everything wrong. I think people and organizations in the US are just under-equipped and over-complacent though, on the whole. There's also a huge shortage of test kits. It's kind of a mess. And the number of people trying to silence the discussion of whether this is a bioweapon or not, is sickening. We should at least have the discussion and let the facts bear out. I'm still on the fence about it, but the evidence needs to be looked at and discussed.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I can't disagree with withholding info on the severity to prevent panic. If people realized how bad this could be for them personally, there's a very large risk of society collapsing.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But if the reality is actually bad, then the panic will come anyway, and if it's pushed to the last minute instead of allowing for preparations beforehand, then we're talking about unnecessary deaths. If we just keep pretending everything is fine when it's not, then that will collapse society.

Being informed and prepared is way more useful to society's longevity than making sure people don't get scared

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Panic delayed, saves lives. People are already beginning to stock up on extra supplies, and the longer that can continue relatively normally, the better, imo.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Panic delayed, saves lives.

Not if it just causes greater panic later!

I agree stocking up and things going normally is good. I just don't think a large enough percent of people are stocking up on supplies early enough, and that will create more intense shortages later, which will potentially cause deaths.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if it causes more panic and death later, although there would be optimal parameters for all factors in this calculation. IMO, an early mass panic that happened before a certain level of preparations began could cripple society to a degree that wouldn't happen 'later', and cause the greatest number of deaths.

For every month that mass panic is delayed, more preparations by supply chains and companies of all types can be made to increasingly mitigate the damage. How much they'll succeed is a question, but their survival in the coming 'economy' will be in the balance too.

It's going to be a historic market tomorrow.

[–]anti_misinformation 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

appropriate panic, delayed, kills.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That too.