> what matters now is the rate of infection transmission and growth
I don't think it's the right metric to focus either.
The survivability rate once infected is probably the most important.
I believe that medias business model (pay per click) force them to jump on and exaggerate any threat so as to get more views. It's not the first time and sadly not the last that we see such a thing.
I could be wrong but I don't think it's the end of the world ;-)
Survivability is important but I believe it's a component of what is important, not the only or even most important factor. You must also consider the infectivity rate.
If one infected person infects, on average, less than one other person, the disease will dwindle and die. It could kill 100% of infected people, but it would kill only a small and decreasing number over time.
Conversely, an infectious disease, where one infected person will infect three others on average, will spread quickly. Even if this disease has a more modest fatality rate, suppose it kills only 5% of infected, it could wind up killing tens of millions, if not more.
In this case, I think the mainstream media is actually understating the danger, by comparing it to the flu to suggest it's not so bad, pointing out how SARS was worse, or claiming that concerns over nCoV are inspired by xenophobia. The academic and medical sources I've been reading tell of high infectivity rates, that it's contagious while asymptomatic, that China is underreporting infections and death, and so on.
You're right that this is probably not the end of the world. This is probably not going to be a major epidemic like The Spanish Flu. However, most potential risks don't materialize. If, for any potential risk, you assume it won't happen, you'll usually be right, but, because of the huge downside of being wrong, that's not a great pattern to follow.
This is a somewhat different argument than the parent comment. The parent comment, as I read it, says that news of the virus is sensationalized. This says it's below your current threshold to act.
When you should take actions to mitigate risks depends on where you are and what resources you have available and what else you are dealing with. Where I am, we have had one case of the virus and I expect we have an above average amount of people recently in China.
I find it quite comforting to read about the virus so I can understand it and take steps to mitigate what I think are the likely risks. Reading the advice of medical experts has helped me take what I hope are sensible precautions and develop a good strategy for what to do if something bad happens with my family.
I have gathered enough food for my household to eat for a month, some water, stocked our medicine cabinet with things that are useful for dealing with the symptoms of the virus, a couple boxes of N95 surgical masks, and, maybe a bit more out there - I've got a pulse oximeter and a stethoscope and I've practiced listening to normal lung sounds and made sure I can use the oximeter.
If the virus sets in where I am, my household will shelter in place and stay inside. If we get sick we will stay home, since I know hospitals can't do more than treat the symptoms and going to hospitals will expose you to other pathogens including pneumonia which seems to kill many people with the virus. I will use the oximeter to detect a drop in blood oxygen of any sick person which is an indicator of pneumonia as a signal that home care is insufficient and then we'll strap on our masks and safety goggles and go to the hospital.
If the viruses doesn't materialize then we'll eat the food in the stockpile and I'll have spent only a small sum on things that aren't likely to be useful.
Providing up to date news about an epidemic is one of the most valuable services of the media. Calling this type of news 'clickbait' is quite bizarre in my opinion. The sources I've been reading haven't been sensationalistic.
the context of the thread, the post you were replying to, is about the economic impacts of most of china staying "on vacation" for a few more weeks.
your twice now trying to catastophize that into a deathtoll or "the end of the world" constitutes either a double-mis-reading or an active attempt at trolling. you want to blame the media, but you are the person introducing the false extremes to this conversation.
people don't have to die from a disease to not want to get it.
I don't think it's the right metric to focus either.
The survivability rate once infected is probably the most important.
I believe that medias business model (pay per click) force them to jump on and exaggerate any threat so as to get more views. It's not the first time and sadly not the last that we see such a thing.
I could be wrong but I don't think it's the end of the world ;-)