[7777fps]

The whole post was playing down the effects of the current pandemic on society. The whole conclusion was that "a flu won't cause [society to break down]".

So yes, the poster was using flu in a diminutive sense. And yes, flu is deadly and a lot worse than a lot of people (who've probably never had flu) realise. But even given that, even recent novel flu strains haven't stressed and shut down the global economy like this pandemic has.

[s1artibartfast]

>The whole conclusion was that "a flu won't cause [society to break down]"

This does not minimize the harm a flu can do, it puts it in perspective. Nuclear bombs going off over LA, London, New York, and Beijing probably would not cause society to break down. That does not mean that does not mean that it wouldn't be terrible, deadly, and disruptive.

When planning for how to prepare and deal with this pandemic, people should not be preparing for some Mad-Max scenario where an assault rifle is their most valuable possession.

[TeMPOraL]

While the death toll remains smaller, at this point the global consequences of this pandemic are worse than LA, London, New York and Beijing getting glassed (assuming this hypothetical scenario was some kind of a terror attack, and not the first strike in WWIII).

[unethical_ban]

To respond to "Clayton" in this thread, we did not have much of an option for reacting to the virus once it got to our land. Legally, the federal government cannot shut down the country and order lockdowns, only cities and states can do that. We could have taken the need for testing and equipment preparation more seriously, but we didn't.

In the absence of data around who is sick, who is not, and who is immune, there is no way to slow the spread of the virus during an outbreak except to keep everyone away from everyone else.

[claytongulick]

To be accurate, the government(s) have shut down the economy.

We had several options for how to respond to this, and chose the most invasive, drastic and potentially economically catastrophic one.