I have a business meeting in China next week. It is only a weekend and not in the province with the outbreak and no banned travel. It is an important meeting but should I just do like Nancy Reagan and say NO?

 

I would....if it was important.

https://onemileatatime.com/cancel-trip-to-china-wuhan-virus/

@floridarob The author of that post later updated it to note that he’s no longer going to travel through China. One of his concerns (which I agree with) is that the Chinese government may be understating the extent of the problem. 

Easy decision for me. I cancelled a business trip to Japan after the Fukushima disaster. There is no way I would visit China now. For me, the bottom line is: without good health, I'm not worth much. Too many people depend on me. I'm not big on gambling, especially when it comes to my health.

I’d go as long as your not headed into that area.  Use caution and stay away from tourist areas. It’s business trip so you can limit physical contact.     I’ll be in Hong Kong on Tuesday with no thoughts to cancel.

I’ll see you in Bangkok soon.  

I would consider it in the same risk category as visiting NYC in flu season.

If you’re elderly or otherwise have a weakened immune system...I’d skip the trip.

The kicker is the government/media health panic that’s occurring.

If you do happen to get sick while traveling, you have to assume that you may be quarantined ...in China. 
That scares me a lot more than just a “bad case of the flu”.

Edited January 28, 20206 yr by nycman

 

I think with due caution, you will be fine. Minimize exposure to people, get in, do the meeting, get out.

My view is that the real risk is very small currently. This could become the spanish flu, but it isn't today. At the moment, you're more likely to get killed crossing a street than from this. 

It is in our nature to fear the new threats and discount the old. 

 

Definitely cancel. I have spent more time in Asia than Europe. That's enough.

CDC issued a level 3 warning (essential travel only to anywhere in China).

That's pretty compelling that you would cancel...

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0128-travelers-avoid-china.html

12 hours ago, caeron said:

Minimize exposure to people

Ever traveled to and within Asia?

Good luck with that.

I spent a year in Vietnam, including a week in Hong Kong (1968/1969).

 

To my critics: what's up?

@TotallyOz, I do not know how healthy you are. If you are healthy as I am, I would not be over concerned about getting infected. Mortality rate is "only" 2%. But I would be crazily concerned about getting locked in a quarantine area, or locked out of your home base for who knows how long. 

The way things are unfolding and people think that the Chinese government isn't telling the whole story, I'd cancel. You may have no choice the way airlines are canceling flights

4 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

Mortality rate is "only" 2%.

Besides that the risk may being underreported by govmt, 2% is still a fucking high percentage.

Google any of the mathematical literature on statistics.

That is an insanely dangerous threshold.

7 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Besides that the risk may being underreported by govmt, 2% is still a fucking high percentage.

Google any of the mathematical literature on statistics.

That is an insanely dangerous threshold.

That is why I placed "only" in between quotations marks. Compare it to previous epidemics, like SARS.

6 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

That is why I placed "only" in between quotations marks. Compare it to previous epidemics, like SARS.

Exactly. I was agreeing with you.

Climate warming btw is only going to make these & other health crises more common & more severe. Here we go...

10 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Exactly. I was agreeing with you.

Climate warming btw is only going to make these & other health crises more common & more severe. Here we go...

I don’t think H. sapiens, much less much else, will be around in 50 years.

Want to bet 25?

10 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

I don’t think H. sapiens, much less much else, will be around in 50 years.

Want to bet 25?

Sure, let's make it a tontine.  Every resident of the planet contributes one penny.  Last person gets the equivalent of 75 million dollars and a "blank" earth to play with.

Best regards,

RA1

13 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

I don’t think H. sapiens, much less much else, will be around in 50 years.

I'm surprised by this level of defeatism, and the people who cling to it are in extreme danger or a danger to humanity.

I am not a pessimist. I see plenty of reasons for hope, particularly in our educated youth. I'm probably not going to be around in fifty years, but I do believe that good has the power to overcome evil. But then again, I do believe in God.

(It's possible I've been watching too much Star Wars.)

9 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

I'm surprised by this level of defeatism, and the people who cling to it are in extreme danger or a danger to humanity.

I am not a pessimist. I see plenty of reasons for hope, particularly in our educated youth. I'm probably not going to be around in fifty years, but I do believe that good has the power to overcome evil. But then again, I do believe in God.

(It's possible I've been watching too much Star Wars.)

Agree with all your statements.

EXCEPT I don’t believe at all that it’s defeatism. Instead, it’s the starkly real possibility of self-extinction that we must openly acknowledge in order to ‘trigger’ ourselves into the unprecedentedly radical plans of action that may have any chance of saving the planet, and ourselves.

A global Manhattan Project to invent, test and perfect proactive geoengineering technologies and methods is the only path to species survival that I can see, motivated as above.

Or any alternative ideas? The Paris Accords are by the immutable laws of physics many orders of magnitude too weak to do anything at all, given where we already are today.

Again, to beat a dead horse, before I was a lit-crit type, I was studying to be a chemical engineer. So I know how the inexorable equations work.

21 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Instead, it’s the starkly real possibility of self-extinction that we must openly acknowledge in order to ‘trigger’ ourselves into the unprecedentedly radical plans of action that may have any chance of saving the planet, and ourselves.

Yes, but we must be watchful of those who like to cry wolf, whatever their agenda. Those who like to use fear as a political weapon. Human beings are gullible and ill-informed. IMO, better to educate them with facts then continually smack them in the head with doomsday scenes akin to Hollywood's imagination.

Unfortunately, there are very few sources left for the citizenry to trust.

Edited February 2, 20206 yr by RockHardNYC

2 hours ago, RockHardNYC said:

Yes, but we must be watchful of those who like to cry wolf, whatever their agenda. Those who like to use fear as a political weapon. Human beings are gullible and ill-informed. IMO, better to educate them with facts then continually smack them in the head with doomsday scenes akin to Hollywood's imagination.

Unfortunately, there are very few sources left for the citizenry to trust.

All this is alas only too true. What consists of ‘facts’ for the voting majority today?

My thought had nothing to do with ‘political agenda’ whatsoever, only unblinking recognition of objective fact.

5 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

What consists of ‘facts’ for the voting majority today?

I can't speak for "majority," but from what I'm reading and hearing, loads of voters are doing due diligence now given what we know about Facebook.

10 minutes ago, RockHardNYC said:

I can't speak for "majority," but from what I'm reading and hearing, loads of voters are doing due diligence now given what we know about Facebook.

I absolutely agree with that. I think in particular that the under-25-yo voters might just be the salvation in 2020.

 

So Oz, did you decide not to go (if not, let's meet for dinner Feb 7-17)