By what mechanisms would you determine your answer to this question? What comparisons should we be making? Should we compare against other linear growth examples or focus on exponential growth examples? Should we research previous epidemics that also had exponential growth characteristics such as the 1918 Spanish Flu?
It infected 500 million people around the world, including people on remote Pacific islands and in the Arctic. The death toll is estimated to have been 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million (three to five percent of Earth's population at the time), making it one of the deadliest epidemics in human history.
Should we consider SARS that was also growing exponentially but, thankfully, happened to be a rather weak virus and didn't survive long? What about how this virus spreads with no symptoms and how does that impact our models for contagion? How does our hyper-connected society with millions of people on flights every day change the distribution models?
Some might say we aren't reacting enough. Every day we get more information to tell us if our world is about to change forever or if this will blow over as a "wow, that was really close" event.
"Look, classic FUD. Another media hype, which will dissolve in a few weeks"
Yes, it's bad. People die from ailments. Heart diseases, strokes, respiratory infections, cancer and diabetes take many casualties every single year. Why no panic over those?
Many reasons, IMO. Are you familiar with what I linked to? 50 to 100 million people dying unexpectedly is a big deal. Heart disease and the like are known risks. People make life choices to engage with those risks. This is completely different. If you're comparing linear things to exponential things, you're not quite getting it.
It's possible this is just media hype. It could be media hype 50 times in row. The one time it's not, where people didn't probably prepare and take action, changes our world completely.
By what mechanisms would you determine your answer to this question? What comparisons should we be making? Should we compare against other linear growth examples or focus on exponential growth examples? Should we research previous epidemics that also had exponential growth characteristics such as the 1918 Spanish Flu?
Should we consider SARS that was also growing exponentially but, thankfully, happened to be a rather weak virus and didn't survive long? What about how this virus spreads with no symptoms and how does that impact our models for contagion? How does our hyper-connected society with millions of people on flights every day change the distribution models?
Some might say we aren't reacting enough. Every day we get more information to tell us if our world is about to change forever or if this will blow over as a "wow, that was really close" event.
You give two options:
I propose a third one:
Yes, it's bad. People die from ailments. Heart diseases, strokes, respiratory infections, cancer and diabetes take many casualties every single year. Why no panic over those?
Many reasons, IMO. Are you familiar with what I linked to? 50 to 100 million people dying unexpectedly is a big deal. Heart disease and the like are known risks. People make life choices to engage with those risks. This is completely different. If you're comparing linear things to exponential things, you're not quite getting it.
It's possible this is just media hype. It could be media hype 50 times in row. The one time it's not, where people didn't probably prepare and take action, changes our world completely.