Hacker News Reader

Is a false sense of security better than spreading panic? Shouldn’t the goal be accurate reporting of the science and statistics, done in a way the general public can understand? Why lie to keep people calm when that is certain to push the R0 higher? (It’s increasingly difficult for me to assume good faith when people keep comparing it to the flu, despite clear and overwhelming evidence, in multiple domains!, to the contrary.)

View on HN

What advice would you have them give? The CDC (and mainstream newssources) already advises commonsense strategies to avoid respiratory illnesses of all types like regular handwashing, don't touch the face, eyes or mouth, stay home when feeling sick, etc.

What else would should they be telling people?

Preemptive social distancing to slow the spread. This is done by educating the public about the probabilities involved thus increasing fear, increase social distancing and decreasing the r0, maybe even enough to avert the coming pandemic. The downside to this is a short term economic hit, the upside is using the “window of opportunity,” as the WHO calls this interim period, to avert or at least slow the spread. A number of helpful policies might come As the result of public demand for more potent measures. For instance greater travel restrictions like those being enacted in other countries. Also, we could actually test people like they are doing elsewhere. That would allow American patients to receive remdesivir. Right now we aren’t testing, so the first bunch of American cases won’t get proper treatment and some, I think many, will suffer worse outcomes and maybe even death because they won’t be identified at first because there’s “no evidence of spread yet” and regular Americans can’t be PUI yet. I get that it’s a medical ethics issue, but do people really get that? I don’t think they do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com