I introduce the "Scary Virus Paradox":
"After clearing a threshold, the less deadly a virus is, the more it will kill."
"After clearing a threshold, the less deadly a virus is, the more it will kill."
(Deadliness here defined as R0 * IFR)
(log-log graph)
This is obviously caused by society's reaction: the deadlier a virus, the scarier, and the more society acts in unison against it, like for Ebola or SARS.
Nobody cares (cared?) about the flu, so it kills ~350k ppl a year.
(log-log graph)
This is obviously caused by society's reaction: the deadlier a virus, the scarier, and the more society acts in unison against it, like for Ebola or SARS.
Nobody cares (cared?) about the flu, so it kills ~350k ppl a year.
Measles antivaxxers, covidiots, antimaskers and the like are therefore a predictable reaction to a virus' deadliness.
This has not always been true. In the past, the deadlier a virus was, the more it killed. Smallpox is a perfect example.
But as we learned about medicine and epidemiology, we figured out how to tame the deadliest viruses. The ones that still kill, thus, kill in part because we don't pay as much attention to them.
These are not the only factors. We do pay attention to the flu, but its fast mutation means common vaccine evasion. Lots of animals also have the flu, so it's nearly impossible to eradicate.
But we could probably do a better job at stopping it. If it killed 100x, we would.
But we could probably do a better job at stopping it. If it killed 100x, we would.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
