The problem with new contagions and social action:

- If society treats the new contagion as no big deal, it can spread and kill A LOT of people, and everyone will say "Why did no one take this seriously!?)

- If society takes it seriously, odds are that any outbreak will be contained and short-lived, and everyone will say "This was hype and not worthy of the concern".

Humans don't process this sort of thing well. You can see it now in the mix of doom predictions, over reactions that happen to fit comfortably with racist sentiments, and statements about how the seasonal flu has killed so many more people than the Corona virus (which should be taken as a sign that flus should be taken seriously, not that they should be ignored, while also true that panic helps no one, but instead come across as "meh, you're overreacting")

In this vein, yes, the reaction to the vaping issues were misplaced to the key problems, were well out scope of the injuries, and appear hypocritical when compared to the many other often-lethal things in society that we openly tolerate. The lesson from that, however, should be "wow, we handle issues of life and death poorly, when those are the issues we'd rather handle well", not "taking any life-and-death situation seriously is an overreaction".

I smell media hype, anyway. People could go just as nuts over the flu each year -- I really don't see a difference.

Are you a trained microbologist? Any form of contagious disease health expert?

I understand viewing the media with skepticism - they make money off of generating emotional reactions. That means their reporting is unreliable, it doesn't mean it is utterly false.

Is there ever a time when an outbreak would seem less suspicious? I'm also not sure the vape "panic" was a moral one. Was there not a clear link to certain vaping products and death?

There was a clear link to vaping bootleg THC carts and death. The moral panic involved blaming all vaping products despite that link. This panic led to bans on some vaping products in Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Montana, Washington and Oregon.

IIRC, that link was not firmly established early on (though I had seen it hypothesized).

NY State announced a link on Sept. 5th. The earliest ban was in late September. (https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2019/2019-09-05_vap...).

The CDC told everyone to "consider" stopping vaping immediately, despite the lack of evidence it was linked to commercial ecigs. It sure seemed like a beautiful play by big tobacco (which manufactures packs of cigarettes for 6 cents a piece -- and would rather kill vaping than try to compete in tech). Note that CDC was swept out by Trump, to avoid fingering handguns as a public health threat.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6841e3.htm

Yeah I'm not sure what's "moral" about people vape users randomly falling ill. Maybe doctors quickly blaming weed could've come off as a moral judgement, but I think it was backed up with enough anecdotal evidence to make that correlation.

Also, I don't think a dozen people falling ill over a year is comparable to the thousands impacted by this and hundreds dead within 2-3 months. It's definitely on a completely different scale here.

Oh, it's because everyone's kids were vaping and no one could control it. But now parents can say that vaping will kill you with a straight face. Literally, this is how and why it all went down.

I've got friends in Wuhan, one is a nurse. I talk to them on FaceTime and WeChat. Does not seem overhyped to me. It's obviously not doomsday but it's not going to disappear silently either.

Well timed for what? What does this even mean? Do you think 150million people (equivalent to roughly 40% of the population of the US) weren't actually quarantined?

Usually means in relation to something big politically - for example, this year is a US presidential election.

Well-timed in regard to what?

Hong Kong protests, perhaps? I don't think it's likely, but governments have been known to do far worse.

Do you also believe the reports of China's economy shutting down are exaggerated? Or do you think hindering the HK protests was worth shutting down China's daily economy and travel for months?

I clearly said I don't believe it's probable. I'm suggesting that may have been what the other poster was getting at.

But long-term, I think it would be perfectly rational to think that a few months of down economy is worth better PR while nipping some anti-government uprising in the bud, at least to an oppressive government.

A terrible economy with people locked up in their homes while their loved ones die in quarantine is also something that creates anti-government sentiments.

I don't think they care if people like them. They care if people stand up to them.

Well-timed with regards to economic trade dealing between the US, China and UK.

The coronavirus has killed people. How is this a "moral panic"?

I feel the opposite way. This outbreak looks worse than I initially thought. Maybe that's because I remember SARS very well and I assumed this one would be similar. But it seems to be way more contagious.

The "vape moral panic of 2019" killed almost 3000 people in America. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/s... I'm sure if you had a family member or friend who died due to this you would have a much different opinion on it and of people who simply call is a "moral panic".

The link you shared states that there have been 64 deaths, and that emergency room visits continue to decline. The theory that the entire rash of injuries was caused by vitamin E acetate is broadly accepted.

The sort of fear-mongering you're engaging in exactly what's meant by moral panic.

I thought they were referring to the thousands of people who will die because they returned to smoking cigarettes instead of vaping.

I stand corrected. How is it a moral panic to point out that there's a problem, in the case of the vape situation something with the chemicals used, and in the case of this virus the fact that it can kill and spread more efficiently than many other diseases? Should people not be alerted so they can take care of themselves? I don't understand the usage of "moral panic" in this way when people have been and can be hurt and killed when it could have been avoided if people just had more information.

If instead of banning legal vapes, we had banned night time driving of cars probably more lives would have been saved.

It's a moral panic because it isn't rooted in consistent moral principles, rather than fear.

Unlike vapes or car crashes, a virus can spread and do damage exponentially. If you have any understanding of mathematics it seems pretty logical to take the threat seriously and do the most you can do prevent it from spreading as fast as it would spread if unchecked. Why are borders between countries still allowing the free movement of people when it's clear that the virus is in most continents now in good numbers? Fear is a good feeling because it leads you to action, and in situations that call for it (like this one) it is the right feeling to have.

Your source says it got almost 3000 people hospitalized, of which some 60+ died. Or am I misreading it?

Appeal to emotion, which particularly doesn't make sense here since a lot of the people pushing back on that moral panic were people who themselves vape..

Another great moral panic that you want to look into is the War on Drugs. It has been decades, and some of the drugs are still in the early process of being unbanned/approved for medical research. Since you want to appeal to emotion so much, how do you feel about the scores of people that could have benefited from research on mushrooms, ketamine, etc. for depression?

Textbook moral panic tropes being used to justify panic, fascinating to see in action.