For experts who study coronaviruses, a grim vindication

Re:For experts who study coronaviruses, a grim vindication by ashtonkem on Monday June 08, 2020 @12:39PM (#23458125)

Epidemiologists have long argued that we over index on diseases like Ebola, who are too lethal to pose a pandemic risk. There have been 1,590 confirmed Ebola fatalities since 1976. Scary if you live where the outbreaks happen, but surprisingly small for how much we freak out about it.

Should we spend some resources on Ebola? Of course. But those resources should be spent in line with the risks as we best understand them. By 2004 we already had evidence that coronaviruses were much more dangerous than Ebola, with the 2003/2004 SARS outbreak killing half as many people (774) as Ebola has in nearly 50 years. Ignoring COVID-19, SARS and MERS (both coronaviruses) have killed 1,640 people, exceeding Ebola’s grim toll.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For experts who study coronaviruses, a grim vindication by awb on Monday June 08, 2020 @02:58PM (#23459610)

> surprisingly small for how much we freak out about it.

It might be small _because_ we freak out about it. Kind of like New Zealand's COVID-19 numbers (or other countries with aggressive prevention / mitigation methods).

In comparing diseases we probably want to compare their transmission and mortality rates and long-term effects. If we compare their infection or death count then we're comparing the disease + the response together which muddies the waters a bit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For experts who study coronaviruses, a grim vindication by telchar on Monday June 08, 2020 @02:42PM (#23459411)

You seem to be very low on your Ebola numbers[0]. Is that based on a super-strict definition of "confirmed"?

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For experts who study coronaviruses, a grim vindication by ashtonkem on Monday June 08, 2020 @03:05PM (#23459675)

Pulled from Wikipedia, which might've been a mistake.

[ Parent | on HN ]