Think houses getting torched because the inhabitants are suspected of having the virus. Judging from what happened in Ukraine, we're getting closer to that kind of hysteria.

https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-riots-erupt-in-ukraine-as-...

Because then in addition to the damage caused by the outbreak, we will also have the additional often useless and counterproductive damage caused by hysteria and panic.

There was a window of opportunity during which this virus could have been contained. The Chinese dictatorship has squandered it in the name of "avoiding panic and hysteria".

Panic and hysteria should be avoided by being transparent, not by playing down the dangers or praising the efforts of an intransparent self-serving regime as the WHO has done from very early on.

Yes, I would indeed. gzer0's original wording, which has now been edited out (without comment), was:

"Stay vigilant, stay careful, but most importantly, do not spread mass hysteria and panic"

Now the wording was changed to:

"Stay vigilant, stay careful, but most importantly, do not spread false information."

I welcome the change, because saying that the most important thing in the face of danger is to avoid panic and hysteria is wrong and characteristic of authoritarian language.

Yes. And the way to avoid it is to switch communication strategies to inform the public without inciting panic. Also to recruit people into being part of the solution at the local level. This could just mean signing up to volunteer to deliver meals, or check on neighbors or just report all's clear if there's a lockdown. The more agency that you give to people, the less panic there is.

I found this article from two risk communications strategists, posted to the blog of a noted virologist, interesting:

Past Time to Tell the Public: “It Will Probably Go Pandemic, and We Should All Prepare Now”

https://virologydownunder.com/past-time-to-tell-the-public-i...

Also, the U.S. has banned flights to/from certain countries during certain times.

Of the top of my head.

Hoarding of supplies causing shortages and harming people who actually need them right now. Progressing to health professionals lacking supplies (masks, etc.) due to shortages (and diverting of dedicated supplies). Unnecessary ER visits which stress the health system thus making it less able to react to an actual problem (as health professionals are tired and burned out). Stress and unnecessary interventions/ER visits increasing people's risk and exposure to existing diseases.

edit: That's not counting real panic which involves mobs with metaphorical pitchforks and the military in streets enforcing some semblance of order (with bullets).

Not trying to downplay the seriousness of this virus, but it's very unlikely to kill 2% of the people in any country — it kills (maybe, approximately) 2% of the people who are infected, but far less than 100% of the population in your country will ever be infected.

Do we have solid information to assert that? SARS and the flu spread from people who are exhibiting symptoms. This new virus is different in that regard, which seems like an open invitation to approach 100% infection rates.

I don’t know either way, but it certainly doesn’t seem unlikely that a solid majority could be infected.

Given most people don't live to be 100, I would guess the world death rate is well over 1%.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just something to think about when considering mortality rates.