Hacker News Reader

> What exactly worries you about mass hysteria and panic? Why would that be worse than what is likely to happen as Covid-19 spreads outside of China?

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-...

Morons. Ukraine has 0 confirmed cases as of today. Though there obviously may be cases there this is beyond ridiculous.

So does Poland. Poland has >400 'suspect cases' as of right now, and strict protocol of testing only patients who have been to China/Wuhan. Despite this everything is fine make believe we had 2 hospitals disinfected yesterday, 'just in case' according to authorities, but still no tests. Whats more Poland doesnt even have tests available locally. Our hospitals were sending samples to Switzerland. Ukraine simply doesnt test anyone, even suspected cases with direct Wuhan link.

In same situation in USA, government informed people, so conflict was resolved via court. In Ukraine, government kept peoples uniformed, then used armed police against people, despite the law.

Countries like Ukraine will not report cases - even if they know they have them.

>What exactly worries you about mass hysteria and panic? Why would that be worse than what is likely to happen as Covid-19 spreads outside of China?

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.

Right, but stressing the importance of avoiding "hysteria and panic" is also extremely popular with authoritarian regimes justifying censorship and trying to cover up their own incompetence.

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.

'But' what? Would you characterise the OP as avoiding being transparent, or playing down the dangers? Is anyone here acting like an authoritarian regime, or is anyone here saying anything contrarian to your point?

>Would you characterise the OP as avoiding being transparent, or playing down the dangers?

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.

> 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. 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...

That is just understood as the hypothesis and the framing of the question. What is the nature of the useless and counterproductive damage caused by hysteria and panic? (I could speculate that it changes economic flows that upsets long term planning and so on, but I would like to hear the opinion of experts on the matter anyway).

>What is the nature of the useless and counterproductive damage caused by hysteria and panic?

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).

I have edited my last statement to say, let us not spread false information. Maybe that is better worded.

> If 2% of the people I know died this year, that would be the worst disaster in my country in my lifetime.

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.

> 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.

> If 2% of the people I know died this year, that would be the worst disaster in my country in my lifetime.

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.