I think many media saw "Covid 2" in it and gave it extremely overblown coverage compared to the actual risks involved
this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
243 points (97.6% liked)
me_irl
7856 readers
3030 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm really not convinced one way or the other but neofashs immediately started trying to downplay it before any info came out. You can kind of count on how fucked we are when we do have a health crisis because this country is never going to take one seriously again
I completely agree. One things for certain, if there's another COVID, the US will not shut down and send everyone to work from home. They are still dealing with the repercussions of the first time. Never again. They'll let us all die first.
They didn't even take the last global pandemic seriously until it was way too late.
Unfortunately, rich people got even richer as a result of the massive government spending trying to keep the lid on the pot that had already boiled over, so they'll never have an incentive to actually take it seriously when they know they won't be negatively affected by it.
Hanta virus: "Oooh look at me! I'm a bad-ass!"
Media: "Holy shit, check out central Africa! Ebola's kicking of again and brutally killing a shit-load of people!!"
Hanta virus: mumbling "Stupid Ebola, always stealing the limelight! I'm gonna go back to playing Hello Kitty Island Adventure."
I read that it killed like 33% of the infected people and the transmission rate is very low.
A virus that kills its host 1/3rd of the time and can't spread isn't very good at being a virus.
See: The video game, Pandemic 2
I don't even know if human to human transmission has even been proven. Like yeah it's no fucking joke, but you have to inhale dust with dried infected rat pee in it to even contract it. No way it'll become widespread.
Fatality is unrelated to the spread. If a virus can spread during its asymptomatic incubation period it can be quite effective.
It's just this virus does not spread well at all based on transmission vectors, nor does it spread during its incubation period.
Wasn't the infection rate in the low double digits?
Like, it wasn't even properly airborne. Monkeypox did better numbers.
Ebola isn't airborne either but that doesn't seem to stop people from doing the best they can to spread it.
The guy was on a ship and quarantine was put in place very quickly. It's not that the virus sucked, we just handled it correctly.
This is what most "virus outbreaks" look like. Quickly contained and you don't hear anything about it.
Ebola isn’t airborne either but that doesn’t seem to stop people from doing the best they can to spread it.
The proximate cause of Ebola spread is driven by unhygienic burial practices specific to rural impoverished communities in West Africa.
Hantavirus spread is, similarly, confined to immediate family of the infected who are often the only available caretakers.
Quarantine and sanitation are highly effective at mitigating the spread of both illnesses.
It’s not that the virus sucked, we just handled it correctly.
A virus that wasn't so fast acting and lethal would have had more time to spread undetected.
Had this been HIV on a swingers cruise, the outcome would be very different
Ebola is doing bits again in West Africa. Nobody seems to care tho