Almost every point in this article is wrong, and it's a great example of "talking past the sale" -- condescendingly explaining why people would psychologically believe something incorrect, without giving evidence that it actually is incorrect.

If you keep parts of your portfolio in cash, it's a great opportunity to accumulate high-quality company shares.

As China starts ramping up again and the West deals with the virus, you'll have pent up demand that needs to be filled. Consumer staples are going to go very well as people are panic buying.

Not mentioned here is tail risk: what degree of extremely serious global harm is possible far outside that of seasonal influenzas? Not trying to predict the risk of that happening, but rather, what is the world's exposure if it does?

Not about fear-mongering: rather, seems better to mitigate exposure to extreme harm rather than be anxious about the possibility of it happening.

China did not lock down entire cities because of mere "hysteria." This has already killed more people than 9/11 in a few weeks time and community spread has just begun outside China. Take this seriously, everyone.

This article is factually incorrect on so many levels, I don't think it's worth addressing individually. The world has an unknown pathogen, that has been shown to lay dormant and hide in your body. 20% of cases will result in an ICU visit. 5% will need a respirator for 3-6 weeks. When cured, reinfection rate is ~14%. It attacks your central nervous system and people are dropping dead in the streets. China has SHUT DOWN. No factory production. So even if he's right about the virus, the economy is cratered. Please treat this with the severity and attention it deserves and stop minimizing the risks. This is bad. One in a hundred year event.

The article doesn't really source its stance and goes off on speculative tangents that can cause a lot of deaths if people accept it as a common mindset. These days I see people saying that it's "just like the flu" and in general denial about how bad 2% mortality can get - this is much more harmful than urging a state of readiness and preparedness.

A Harvard professor explains[1] that denial is far worse than panic. The latter jolts us into a state of preparedness, while the former will result in many deaths should things turn out differently than expected.

With regards to the author's disagreement on the 2% number, I am not sure they are correct. The author says that there is testing bias, but I'd imagine a good sample of people in Wuhan have been tested by now, and yet China's reported mortality rates are still just over 2%.

And 2% is a big deal, so we should take this seriously - we should panic. 2% means mass graves, and it means ten times the casualties of the Holocaust. Utilizing panics to influence policy to have a well-oiled rapid-response plan in place for pandemics cannot be a bad thing. The CDC's recent missteps are evidence of this. Perhaps we are lucky that COVID-19 might "only" be 2% - we shouldn't assume that the next pandemic will be as kind.

[1]: https://nieman.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/pod-assets/mic...