
The U.S. Isn't Ready for What’s About to Happen - pmoriarty
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/us-isnt-ready-whats-about-happen/607636/
======
oefrha
I’ve been taking COVID-19 very seriously from the start (my comment history
would back this claim), but the first concrete statement in this article about
the danger of COVID-19 is

> Last week, the World Health Organization assessed the fatality rate at a
> shocking 3.4 percent, much higher than previously believed.

And that’s very misleading. Here’s what WHO director general actually said [1]

> Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died.

Which is accurate, but that’s not WHO’s accessed fatality rate.

I’ve seen media roll with this accurate stat and twist it into things it
isn’t, and it makes my stomach turn. Maybe they’re trying to overturn the
earlier things are all good narrative, but this kind of misleading reporting
doesn’t inspire confidence at all.

[1] [https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-
general-...](https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-
opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020)

Edit: can’t respond on a dead article, but I’m not saying case fatality rate
can’t be as high as 3.4%. It could even be higher when hospitals are
overwhelmed, e.g. in Wuhan. But (reported) case fatality rate isn’t fatality
rate among all infected, and certainly isn’t fatality rate among the entire
population. Look no further than another comment claiming “For context, 3.4%
would kill 329,000 people in the SF Bay Area” to see how people are misled.

~~~
saiya-jin
If you look at Italy's situation (which might be more representative for
things to come compared to unique China's one as source of outbreak - initial
denial and delays, and on the other side ability to stop the whole country and
have population following the orders to get shit done), fatality last time I
checked was above 4%.

Yes, they have older population, but generally its a first world country and
their health care level is definitely above world's average.

------
donw
A large part of the problem is the sheer amount of spin present in every form
of news media.

Is there a genuine level of threat beyond a particularly bad influenza season
-- which is no joke! -- or is the quoted 3.4 percent mortality rate a
realistic number for the US, or Japan, or ...?

For context, 3.4% would kill 329,000 people in the SF Bay Area, likely more
given the homelessness situation. That's a world-changing event.

What does that breakdown look like in terms of age distribution and other
health factors?

Or is this just another "be afraid! be scared!" push that the 24/7 news cycle
has latched on to for eyeballs and revenue? Before this, there was SARS, and
H1N1, and the West Nile virus... you cry wolf so many times, no wonder the
village is slow to get its act together when you report on imminent danger of
canine predators.

Given the death counts, I'm inclined to take things seriously, but panic never
helps anything.

So, personally, I'm sticking with my infectious disease protocol: work from
home, wash hands and gargle every time I come in from outside, keep my
storeroom stocked with the essentials, and overall, ignore every bit of panic
being pumped out by news articles like this.

------
cameldrv
The point about parents needing to stay home is valid, but wouldn't generally
apply to older children. This is an emergency -- if a ten year old kid's
doctor mom and police officer dad need to show up to work, the kid can stay
home. This used to be commonplace. Particularly if lessons are online over
videoconference, teachers can help verify that the kids are at home and
studying. Younger kids can be left with friends or relatives. This isn't ideal
for infection control, but groups of 2-3 kids is much safer than groups of 25.

------
roenxi
> ... he worries that misgivings like his will become self-fulfilling
> prophecies—that citizens will panic if their local authorities give voice to
> their own doubts ...

This attitude is common and remarkably foolish. If people would behave
differently if they had better information then they _really_ need that
information. Problems that get smaller when ignored are rare; and this is not
one of them.

Panic is vastly over-hyped as a threat. The threat is government responses to
sudden increases in demand; like "banning price gouging" and cementing a
shortage into the medium term. Supply chains don't move that quickly, but if
there is a problem in the future then a few weeks notice via market signals is
extremely useful.

------
mjevans
Having read the article, I find myself unable to recall any actual steps it
recommended for preparing; aside from expecting the unknown.

~~~
bsaul
i completely agree.. This article doesn't even assess in which way the US
isn't ready (in the sense of : which country is best prepared and why)

------
bestouff
I'll be very interested in following how a powerful nation with a perceived
"selfish" way of life (extremely limited sick leave, no medicare, etc.)
performs in this scenario.

