Talk:2282: Coronavirus Worries

Props to Randall for not mentioning toilet paper ONCE 172.69.34.88 21:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

He couldn't. There aren't any more toilet paper jokes left! 162.158.159.52 11:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I heard there are plenty of toilet paper jokes, but people are hoarding them ...Boatster (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The transcript states that the axis lines do not have arrows on them. It should describe the arrows on labels, i.e. More common with arrow pointing to the right. Rtanenbaum (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My initial take on the More Healthy axis reflected on the person doing the worrying, that is some worries would be more or less common depending on the health of the person. The explanation interprets More Healthy to refer to the worry itself, that is some worries are intrinsically more healthy than others. I am at a loss to determine which of these interpretations more closely fits the worries that are listed. Rtanenbaum (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

While there are some data points that could fit the "health of the worrier" interpretation (eg a sick person would worry more about how they got a cough, while a healthy person might not even have a cough), I think all of them can fit the "health of the worry" and some of them explicitly do not fit the former. For example a sick person is not less likely to worry that "random people in a news story" are reacting wrong compared to "your government"; and a healthy person is more likely to worry that a lack of rest/hydration will cause them to *get* the virus yet that dot is both low on the "healthy" axis and higher on the "commonality" axis than general concern about rest/hydration. Finally if it was how common the worry was depending on the health of the person then I would expect lines or curves rather than points, since that would better show whether a healthy person is more or less likely to have a worry than a sick person; as it stands they indicate a single value per worry, suggesting that each worry has a definite commonality and health value rather than a dependent relationship.

"with at least eight in a row" -- this is getting hecka tiresome. Surely he can think of _something_ other than the flu 2.0.

   Wouldn't it be interesting if your dismissive "flu 2.0" led you be infected by the Coronavirus....162.158.214.136 01:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For most people in not-at-risk groupings (meaning not elderly, infants, or immuno-compromised), it really isn't that big of a hit to their health. The risk is not that a young/middle-aged person gets sick, the risk is that they spread it to someone who is in an at-risk segment. Nevertheless, people die all the time from the regular flu, and not in trivial numbers. This isn't that much different. More people are going to be hurt much worse from losing their jobs (hospitality, entertainment, service ... and the industries that support them), incomes, and probably homes than would have been from this. 162.158.74.45 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The thing is: Covid-19 is currently not a big health risk for most people, because there are strong measures to fight it. Without of those measures it would me much more people affected. Also if you look at Italy: Most people dying there are elderly. Because they do not get sufficient treatment. Why? Because they give the lung machines to younger people instead. --Lupo (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)