[fragmede]

I don't disagree with your position - if there's a wide-spread epidemic, things will go bad, especially as the healthcare system gets overwhelmed. But that's not a novel or interesting point of view, and I doubt many would disagree. So why go around inciting panic?

Lets try some other numbers. If 1% of the population gets infected, and 1% needs extra medical care, that's 200 people. If 0.1% of the population is infected and 0.1% of the population need extra medical care, that's... two people. That's not so scary, and I'm not going to slowly suffocate. (There's no need to threaten me with asphyxiation, thanks.) We don't have any reliable information, so any numbers used for "back of the envelope" math might as well be relating my birth date to star signs and be used to find my future lover, for all the basis in reality they ultimately have.

I mean, you're scared. I get it, I'm scared too. I feel powerless in the face of this epidemic and being told to wash my hands a bit more, and touch my face less only serves to reiterate my impotence. Is that where the thirst for disaster potential comes from? An addiction to the panic endorphins?

(I am genuinely curious, and am hopeful that mns' comment will stimulate commentary about the meta-topic.) (And apologies for singling you out personally, ajsnigrutin, the other sibling replies are of the same nature and yours was the comment I chose to reply to.)

[watwut]

That is where speed of spreading the disease comes in. If you can limit it so that 1% of population in local area is sick simultaneously, then it is fine.

If you cant limit the speed of spreading the disease, then the hospitals will miss those needed respirators and more people will die. Cause respirator is necessary if you are one of the unlucky ones.

Which is where "hysteria" around locking areas, washing hands and testing people on airports comes in. That is why locking cities, working from home and having some reasonable amount of food so that you are comfortable. The whole point is to slow down spreading, so that resources are available for sick people.

> I feel powerless in the face of this epidemic and being told to wash my hands a bit more, and touch my face less only serves to reiterate my impotence. Is that where the thirst for disaster potential comes from? An addiction to the panic endorphins?

It is not impotent to wash hands and touch face less and avoid unnecessary crowd. That done in masses is to slow down the spread. It is all actually useful.

[ajsnigrutin]

But if you get a bunch of "it's just a flu" people, who sneeze everywhere and don't wash their hands, that "1%" number gets higher. I'm not saying we should close up the whole country, but basic measures (you're ill, even if it is just a flu, you stay home... people must wash hands. Hand desinfectants at stores, schools, etc. No large gatherings if it's not neccessary. If you can, work from home, if someone near you got sick. etc)

[ummonk]

According to the Chinese papers, something like 15% of cases are serious and need hospitalization. If it does become widespread, it would be a major calamity (though most people would survive and the world would move on once it is over).

As to whether it will become widespread, the jury is still out. China appears to have gotten it under control, but it took drastic measures to do so. The rest of the world has yet to demonstrate an ability and willingness to do the same. There is a decent chance this will spread as widely as the swine flu did, but with more than 20x the case fatality rate, we would be looking at tens of millions of deaths worldwide.