15 ms·

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? In the movie version of "I Robot", since the three laws of robotics prioritize saving life over following humans' wishes, the AI ends up locking down every humans in their own homes for their own safety. Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as an evil action? For instance, in France, more than half of private sector employees have already been furloughed. This is unprecedented. So, who could predict what would be the consequences, including in terms of life? The food production in Southern Europe is down. Can we know for sure that their will be no starvation? Several countries have not decided to do a stay-at-home-lockdown including Sweden, most of Germany, Japan, South Korea, 95% of China. Praising the strategy of these countries should be authorized. Several eastern and northern Europeans countries are opening up as well, even though the disease is still there. People should be able to take a calculated risk. When people drive to their job, they consider the risk of having an accident, and the benefits of being able to reach their work place, then they take a decision. The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew. Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. For now, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people in France, Italy, and Spain want the lockdown, so they should be able to get it. But people who want the opposite should be able to express their voice as well. Otherwise, the democracy cannot work. (Sorry for the bad English, it is not my native language.)

staticassertion 6y ago
> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appeal to "but our freedoms". Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. If instead you argue that you're legitimately going to see more harm done due to closures, and you back that up sensibly, people will care a lot more. You'll probably be wrong, but people might listen and take that seriously. In fact, they very obviously already are listening to this feedback, and it's a huge part of the communications from govt officials right now - how we are balancing saving lives via lockin vs dealing with the fallout of that exact policy. They're hardly ignoring the issue! > Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as a evil action? Sure they could take it down, it's their platform. Would they? No, probably not, that would be really silly? > Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever. You say "People should be able to take a calculated risk." - how would they calculate it? Most are not capable of making an informed decision like that, and likening this situation to driving is just ridiculous (and ironic, given that car safety was heavily regulated due to huge numbers of people dying while car manufacturers were left unaccountable. The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc.).
- abnry 6y ago
  > Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. The problem is that it may not be temporary due to legal creep. See: U.S. Patriot Act.
  - staticassertion 6y ago
    Very little about this feels like the Patriot Act. I also don't really see why the government would want to tank its economy. I mean, I can think of some really out there reasons, but I don't really feel it's worth entertaining given the far more reasonable reason for lock-in during a pandemic. edit: When I say 'this' I mean enforced lock in, specifically.
    - kfrzcode 6y ago
      What feelings did you feel in October 2001?
      - staticassertion 6y ago
        Not much, I was a child. I think it would be sort of a waste of time to compare 9/11 to Covid with regards to government overreach. Off the bat, the threat is of a completely different nature, we understand the threat in a completely different way, the threat is taking place within our borders and, of course, globally. The measures are not broad, relatively. They are explicitly intended to be short term. They are being discussed out in the open. I don't know, I could probably spend the whole night listing differences but it's so obvious I really don't think I will. Unless you're simple enough to boil both responses to "well it's a thing that a government did", idk, the similarities end super quickly.
        kfrzcode 6y ago
        You'll have to excuse my skepticism. My government has a pretty poor history when it comes to the interests of its people, having sent yet another generation of its children to war on the other side of the planet based on false statements...I'm jaded, I'm biased and I'm most likely ignorant-as-fuck. Please, forgive my doubt. It's seeded in deep levels of trauma. I even bought into the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme, thinking I was clever. > measures are not broad I would call trillions of dollars of stimulus injections and virtual lockdowns quite broad. However my point is more that while a panicked, fearful public is distracted with the News of the Day, governmental agencies, lobbyists and others will play. "You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste." To be fair there are many on the 'net who are die-hard and staunchly rooted in the anti-governmental camp. I'm rational and seeking discourse to expand my knowledge and evolve a complex, multi-faceted worldview; many others are not.
Pils 6y ago
If a country is unwilling to make reasonable accommodations for working people to vote, defending in-person protests during a global pandemic as necessary for said country's democracy is beyond parody.
- toast0 6y ago
  I've voted in three states. In California, permanent absentee registration is simple (now, it wasn't 30 years ago), and the state mandates time off to vote. In Washington state, all voting is vote by mail. I don't remember what voting in Wisconsin was like (at the time, I did same day registration, but I think they went back and forth). In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of examples of states where voting is reasonable.
  - Pils 6y ago
    > In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of examples of states where voting is reasonable. 7 people got infected in Wisconsin due to voting: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/04/20/coronavirus-milwaukee-7-new-cases-may-tied-april-7-election/5168669002/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/04/.... I am glad your experiences in CA/WA were positive, but I would suggest looking into the history of "voting is a state issue."
czardoz 6y ago
You're talking about this as if a "calculated risk" is limited to that individual, but it's not. Someone's "calculated risk" is literally death knell for others. In this case, the health of the society as a whole is at stake. Therefore, people need to collectively follow rules, and understand that minor inconveniences such as not being able to get a haircut will only affect them for a few weeks or months.
- alyx 6y ago
  I don’t think you read his post. You are endangering others‘ lives each time you drive. And yet you’re not inline at the DMV surrendering your license, why? Seasonal sickness also isn’t new. My coworker gave me the flu and I gave it to my grandmother. Who’s at fault there?
  - coliveira 6y ago
    False equivalence. Car accidents are not transmitting at viral rates. Cars are not infecting other cars even when they are working perfectly well. Seasonal flu is not killing 2% of those infected, and even then we take necessary measures to avoid the common flu.
    - alyx 6y ago
      When you say "viral rates" please cite your model. Here is the latest out of California, https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-county-covid-19-study-released/ https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-coun... Making the effective death rate like 0.1% - 0.3%, if confirmed.
      - czzr 6y ago
        This paper has been widely criticised as likely being completely wrong, as it incorrectly accounts for false positives. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...
tjr225 6y ago
I have been a staunch progressive for my entire adulthood and now find myself strongly agreeing with the other side of the aisle. Strange times.
- dmix 6y ago
  This is where the pyramid makes more sense than left/right. This is authoritarianism/centralization top of the pyramid, where people think they know what's best for other people and a top-down approach to "fixing stupid" is the best solution. I personally think it's okay/normal for there to be idiots in society and trying to fix stupid by stopping them from protesting via opaque big tech companies moderation policies is a terrible way to go about it (or courts via government interference on public property, for that matter, but the constitution covers that already). I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about. That has little to do with being left/right leaning. Weeding out astroturfing campaigns is also distinct from this, you can narrowly remove stuff that is atroturfed without being political about it. But just because some stuff is astroturfed shouldn't mean anything to do with it should then be shut down.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    >I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about. Note how dramatically you understate one side and overstate the other by your choice of wording.
    - tjr225 6y ago
      I agree with your sentiment but one side is trying to dictate what is acceptable- the other is not.
      - vkou 6y ago
        This can also be phrased as a choice between one side that is trying to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and one that is not. I don't care if the first group does it out of ignorance, or simple disregard for human life. They are free to play Russian roulette with their own lives. They have no moral right to do so with the lives of their neighbours.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Just to point out that quote is a textbook example of historical revisionism. Benjamin Franklin wrote this to the Penn family who governed the state of the same name on behalf of the general assembly. The Penn family wanted to make a one time payment to be excluded from any future tax obligations, and Franklin's quote here is very literal, that is to say, making a one time payment to absolve oneself from duty to the state (in this case taxes were to be used to finance the Indian and French war efforts), is immoral. So in contrast to what you're trying to imply, Franklin made the case that long term social obligations and the ability of the assembly to govern were more important than dodging one's obligation. Ironically enough I think this may even be transferable to the covid-19 situation. A little temporary economic boost is probably not as important as following rules to safeguard public health.
- lonelappde 6y ago
  Close, but missed it by a hair. Franklin was telling the government that if they "give up essential Liberty to levee taxes for temporary safety (immediate funding)", they deserve none. Anyway, Franklin wasn't God. He was a brilliant person and a clever rhetorician who new how to manipulate with words.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I think I have heard at least four different versions of the alleged history of the Franklin quote over the years (one of which being that it is apocryphal and he never actually said it), all from people willing to tie themselves into a knot to avoid the words having their ordinary plain meaning. It's a rhetorical device, not a history book. A lot of other people have said the same thing over the years, but if you attribute it to them instead, the words are still the same and so is the meaning intended to be conveyed by the people using the quote now. On top of that, the quote still can't be used for what you're using it for, because giving up the power to tax (note also that at the time the taxes had to be apportioned) is not at all the same thing as usurping the power to infringe rights held by the people.
coliveira 6y ago
When you go out to the streets, you're not putting just yourself in danger. You're transmitting a virus that can kill lots of innocent people, including health care workers, essential workers, senior citizens, etc.
caconym_ 6y ago
Serious question: would you make the same argument about censoring anti-vaccination views? Reopening the country has undeniably turned into a political issue, and one thing we know for certain about Facebook and social media in general is that they are rife with political disinformation. I don't think it's accurate to explain this activity as the speech of "ordinary people" when there seems to be just as much evidence, if not more, that most Americans are concerned about COVID-19, and that these campaigns to organize protests are barely-disguised astroturfing. See also Trump's "LIBERATE $STATE" tweets. I think Facebook is terrible and should be destroyed, but I must admit they have a very challenging problem on their hands in distinguishing malicious, manipulative speech from ignorant speech, and ignorant speech from speech that goes against the majority opinion but is, in fact, correct. And even if they can classify content correctly most of the time, how should they deal with all those categories and all the shades of grey within them? Do you think they should turn a blind eye to political disinformation? Do you think they should enable the spread of manipulative ignorance, theft of elections, and so on? Given that some people will disagree with everything they do, and that at the scale of billions of users they will invariably fuck up a lot of individual cases, I think banning astroturfed campaigns to get people out in the streets blocking ambulances and harassing medical personnel during a global pandemic is A-OK. The people propping these things up should be fucking ashamed of themselves, but I know they aren't capable of such things. This activity has nothing in common with good-faith speech questioning the value of these lockdowns.
jacques_chester 6y ago
If these were private matters affecting only particular individuals as a consequence of their particular decisions, then yes, I would broadly be open to allowing private choices. But it's not. Folks breaking shelter-in-place orders impose a non-trivial risk on everyone else. This is a classic externality problem and the classic answer, if a market mechanism cannot be formed, is regulation. Since viruses don't respect cap-and-trade schemes, we are stuck with what we have and we should absolutely punish those who impose substantial risks (2% is absurdly high, are you kidding?) on the rest of us against our will.
mindslight 6y ago
I'd buy into the argument that people should be free to make their own risk choices, if most people were in the position to make their own choice at all. Unfortunately for many, needing to go to work to pay rent is not a choice. Closing non-essential businesses is one of the few avenues of collective action available. It's horribly unequal to essential employees, but it's better than everyone simply being forced to carry on as normal, especially without PPE or new procedures. What is shutdown and what is open certainly needs to be refined. (Simple example: there is a private park near me that is closed, in spite of it being a good place to get out of the house while distancing) But it's awfully hard to have nuanced discussion when it's drown out by obtuse ignorant nonsense.
dchichkov 6y ago
It is a risk to let the virus burn through uncontrolled. You might get outcome similar to the second wave of Spanish Flu - https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge... Evolutionary pressure on the virus should be towards a "wimpy virus", not a virus that "has the power to kill a perfectly healthy young man or woman within 24 hours of showing the first signs of infection". And yes, it is important to balance the economic damage and public health risk. And it is important to take into consideration that there is a public health risk from economic damage. In practice, the solution is probably pretty simple. The economy should be reopened in a controlled manner, in a few months. Sport events, concerts, conferences should stay closed, until there are either: antivirals, herd immunity or vaccines.
lkrubner 6y ago
"Praising the strategy of these countries should be authorized." I've heard variations on this argument made 3 of the last 5 days by the President Of the United States. In what sense is this not authorized? The most powerful person in the world is promoting variations on this idea. Also, turn on Fox News and they have been making this argument almost continuously for the last 72 hours. No one is censoring them. Indeed, if you watch that channel, you might think this argument is the mainstream view. There is nothing wrong with the argument itself, which is why it is getting so much air time. Still, the actual gatherings that are being organized are a different issue. Until there is more transparency about who is funding the anti-quarantine movement, a certain caution would be wise, otherwise we are potentially stumbling into another fiasco like the 2016 election.
fyfy18 6y ago
> Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. The problem with this argument is that there isnt that much data around, and what is available is only understandable to a subset of the population as it's in scientific papers. If you let everyone decide, what would happen is most people would listen to their authority figures which would be their governor, mayor, pastor or news anchor. The problem is those people will each have their own agenda and aren't going to give an unbiased recommendation, and those people don't necessarily have the knowledge themselves to understand the data. What you are saying is similar to saying people should have a choice of whether to smoke or not. The risks of smoking are pretty well known, and its easy to make that call. This is more like deciding whether to take a new party drug - your friends take it and everything is fine, but you've all heard about the story of that couple that died from taking it. (And that doesn't take into account that you can infect others who are more vulnerable than you)
camgunz 6y ago
> People should be able to take a calculated risk. That is not at all what we're talking about here. People should not be able to take a calculated risk with the lives of others. Let me tell you why it's not like driving: the NHTSA reports 102 car fatalities a day in 2016. NYC just got under 500 COVID deaths a day. One city. 5x the fatalities. Compared to a country of 300 million people. This is, by far, the most outrageous, insanely reckless thing I have ever read on HN. I beg you to please, stop doing this. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of lives maybe are at stake.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  you realize when someone dies in a car accident that they may have otherwise lived another 40 or 80 years, whereas with covid they probably had two months.
  - modzu 6y ago
    so it's a hard topic nobody wants to think about genuinely but isn't there truth to it? the nursigng homes that are being ravaged the most -- people are there for end of life care. by definition. they are generally under a policy of do not recussitate. thats very different than any hn readers experience (nobody here is commenting as a nursing home patient). this is not to say their lives dont matter but the context does
    - ebg13 6y ago
      > but isn't there truth to it? NO. THERE IS NOT. Less than 50% of COVID deaths are over 75 years old. That means that more than 50% are under 75. A full quarter of deaths are below 64. These are not people dying anyway. These are not people in nursing homes. These are people like you.
      - legostormtroopr 6y ago
        > Less than 50% of COVID deaths are over 75 years old That means more half of the deaths are of people over 75, and 75% of deaths are over 65.
kelnos 6y ago
> People should be able to take a calculated risk. ... with their own lives. You're talking about allowing people to risk other people's lives, and no, that's not ok. > The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew. You're contradicting yourself. If the Diamond Princess is perfectly representative of the world population, then no young people should die, anywhere. But that's not the case -- young people have indeed died from this -- so therefore the Diamond Princess does not give us an accurate picture at all. > Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. [...] But people who want the opposite should be able to express their voice as well. Express their voice, yes, I agree with that. Make their own decision, no, not at all. The average -- even above average -- person does not know how to interpret the fractured data we have right now to the point of being able to make an informed decision. This is one of those frustrating times when we must rely on the people who live and breathe this every day to make those decisions for us. I'm not saying they don't need to explain or show their work, and I'm not saying we need to just blindly trust, but we do need to carefully consider whether we know better than people who are literally trained to know how all this works. (Hint: we don't, and can't, know better.)
- llcoolv 6y ago
  > ... with their own lives. You're talking about allowing people to risk other people's lives, and no, that's not ok. So, let's ban driving then?
  - chimprich 6y ago
    In my country we don't just let people drive however they like on public roads. You have to be above a certain age, have passed a test, not be drunk or stoned, be driving a roadworthy vehicle, and follow many other rules. Your risk to other people's lives is carefully managed.
    - llcoolv 6y ago
growlist 6y ago
Here's a radical idea: allow people that want to ignore lockdown to do so, in exchange for refusal of anything but palliative care if they get sick with Coronavirus.
- eveningcoffee 6y ago
  You forget that they will go and infect many others until they end in the hospital. That is the major issue with infections diseases.
  - growlist 6y ago
    > refusal of anything but palliative care
    - DanBC 6y ago
      > they will go and infect many others
      - growlist 6y ago
        Who have the choice themselves on whether to isolate or otherwise
        eveningcoffee 6y ago
        This is not acceptable. It is like saying we should not try to catch serial killers because people can just stay at home.
DavidVoid 6y ago
> Several countries have not decided to do a stay-at-home-lockdown including Sweden The Swedish approach is based on the idea that people who have any symptoms at all are able to stay home from work. I really doubt that that approach would work in countries like the US where workers' rights are much weaker. And although Sweden is not in a mandatory stay-at-home lockdown pretty much anyone who is able to work from home is doing so and the streets are much emptier than usual.
SamuelAdams 6y ago
> The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew. The trouble with this assertion is that we don't know if it is statistically valid. Consider the number of crew to the number of passengers on a typical cruise ship. If there were only 20 crewmembers, is that enough to form a valid conclusion of "young people don't die from this disease"? Furthermore, were emergency services able to help every infected passenger on board? Yes, the fatality rate was 2%, but how many were infected and required treatment? The big issue in the states is that if enough people (just 1% in some areas) require treatment, the hospital systems will be overwhelmed and people who have a treatable illness will die due to lack of available resources. So the best thing society can do is either self-isolate to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or hospitals can somehow advocate for legislation to refuse patients with COVID-19 symptoms to prevent their resources from being overwhelmed.

staticassertion 6y ago

> If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appeal to "but our freedoms". Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. If instead you argue that you're legitimately going to see more harm done due to closures, and you back that up sensibly, people will care a lot more. You'll probably be wrong, but people might listen and take that seriously. In fact, they very obviously already are listening to this feedback, and it's a huge part of the communications from govt officials right now - how we are balancing saving lives via lockin vs dealing with the fallout of that exact policy. They're hardly ignoring the issue! > Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as a evil action? Sure they could take it down, it's their platform. Would they? No, probably not, that would be really silly? > Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. The role of our government is not to provide data but then otherwise let people do whatever. You say "People should be able to take a calculated risk." - how would they calculate it? Most are not capable of making an informed decision like that, and likening this situation to driving is just ridiculous (and ironic, given that car safety was heavily regulated due to huge numbers of people dying while car manufacturers were left unaccountable. The government stepped in with license requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc.).

abnry 6y ago
> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives. The problem is that it may not be temporary due to legal creep. See: U.S. Patriot Act.
- staticassertion 6y ago
  Very little about this feels like the Patriot Act. I also don't really see why the government would want to tank its economy. I mean, I can think of some really out there reasons, but I don't really feel it's worth entertaining given the far more reasonable reason for lock-in during a pandemic. edit: When I say 'this' I mean enforced lock in, specifically.
  - kfrzcode 6y ago
    What feelings did you feel in October 2001?
    - staticassertion 6y ago
      Not much, I was a child. I think it would be sort of a waste of time to compare 9/11 to Covid with regards to government overreach. Off the bat, the threat is of a completely different nature, we understand the threat in a completely different way, the threat is taking place within our borders and, of course, globally. The measures are not broad, relatively. They are explicitly intended to be short term. They are being discussed out in the open. I don't know, I could probably spend the whole night listing differences but it's so obvious I really don't think I will. Unless you're simple enough to boil both responses to "well it's a thing that a government did", idk, the similarities end super quickly.
      - kfrzcode 6y ago
        You'll have to excuse my skepticism. My government has a pretty poor history when it comes to the interests of its people, having sent yet another generation of its children to war on the other side of the planet based on false statements...I'm jaded, I'm biased and I'm most likely ignorant-as-fuck. Please, forgive my doubt. It's seeded in deep levels of trauma. I even bought into the whole "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" meme, thinking I was clever. > measures are not broad I would call trillions of dollars of stimulus injections and virtual lockdowns quite broad. However my point is more that while a panicked, fearful public is distracted with the News of the Day, governmental agencies, lobbyists and others will play. "You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste." To be fair there are many on the 'net who are die-hard and staunchly rooted in the anti-governmental camp. I'm rational and seeking discourse to expand my knowledge and evolve a complex, multi-faceted worldview; many others are not.

Pils 6y ago

If a country is unwilling to make reasonable accommodations for working people to vote, defending in-person protests during a global pandemic as necessary for said country's democracy is beyond parody.

toast0 6y ago
I've voted in three states. In California, permanent absentee registration is simple (now, it wasn't 30 years ago), and the state mandates time off to vote. In Washington state, all voting is vote by mail. I don't remember what voting in Wisconsin was like (at the time, I did same day registration, but I think they went back and forth). In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of examples of states where voting is reasonable.
- Pils 6y ago
  > In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of examples of states where voting is reasonable. 7 people got infected in Wisconsin due to voting: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/04/20/coronavirus-milwaukee-7-new-cases-may-tied-april-7-election/5168669002/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/04/.... I am glad your experiences in CA/WA were positive, but I would suggest looking into the history of "voting is a state issue."

czardoz 6y ago

You're talking about this as if a "calculated risk" is limited to that individual, but it's not. Someone's "calculated risk" is literally death knell for others. In this case, the health of the society as a whole is at stake. Therefore, people need to collectively follow rules, and understand that minor inconveniences such as not being able to get a haircut will only affect them for a few weeks or months.

alyx 6y ago
I don’t think you read his post. You are endangering others‘ lives each time you drive. And yet you’re not inline at the DMV surrendering your license, why? Seasonal sickness also isn’t new. My coworker gave me the flu and I gave it to my grandmother. Who’s at fault there?
- coliveira 6y ago
  False equivalence. Car accidents are not transmitting at viral rates. Cars are not infecting other cars even when they are working perfectly well. Seasonal flu is not killing 2% of those infected, and even then we take necessary measures to avoid the common flu.
  - alyx 6y ago
    When you say "viral rates" please cite your model. Here is the latest out of California, https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-county-covid-19-study-released/ https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-coun... Making the effective death rate like 0.1% - 0.3%, if confirmed.
    - czzr 6y ago
      This paper has been widely criticised as likely being completely wrong, as it incorrectly accounts for false positives. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaws-in-stanford-study-of-coronavirus-prevalence/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...

tjr225 6y ago

I have been a staunch progressive for my entire adulthood and now find myself strongly agreeing with the other side of the aisle. Strange times.

dmix 6y ago
This is where the pyramid makes more sense than left/right. This is authoritarianism/centralization top of the pyramid, where people think they know what's best for other people and a top-down approach to "fixing stupid" is the best solution. I personally think it's okay/normal for there to be idiots in society and trying to fix stupid by stopping them from protesting via opaque big tech companies moderation policies is a terrible way to go about it (or courts via government interference on public property, for that matter, but the constitution covers that already). I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about. That has little to do with being left/right leaning. Weeding out astroturfing campaigns is also distinct from this, you can narrowly remove stuff that is atroturfed without being political about it. But just because some stuff is astroturfed shouldn't mean anything to do with it should then be shut down.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about. Note how dramatically you understate one side and overstate the other by your choice of wording.
  - tjr225 6y ago
    I agree with your sentiment but one side is trying to dictate what is acceptable- the other is not.
    - vkou 6y ago
      This can also be phrased as a choice between one side that is trying to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, and one that is not. I don't care if the first group does it out of ignorance, or simple disregard for human life. They are free to play Russian roulette with their own lives. They have no moral right to do so with the lives of their neighbours.

Barrin92 6y ago

>Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? Just to point out that quote is a textbook example of historical revisionism. Benjamin Franklin wrote this to the Penn family who governed the state of the same name on behalf of the general assembly. The Penn family wanted to make a one time payment to be excluded from any future tax obligations, and Franklin's quote here is very literal, that is to say, making a one time payment to absolve oneself from duty to the state (in this case taxes were to be used to finance the Indian and French war efforts), is immoral. So in contrast to what you're trying to imply, Franklin made the case that long term social obligations and the ability of the assembly to govern were more important than dodging one's obligation. Ironically enough I think this may even be transferable to the covid-19 situation. A little temporary economic boost is probably not as important as following rules to safeguard public health.

lonelappde 6y ago
Close, but missed it by a hair. Franklin was telling the government that if they "give up essential Liberty to levee taxes for temporary safety (immediate funding)", they deserve none. Anyway, Franklin wasn't God. He was a brilliant person and a clever rhetorician who new how to manipulate with words.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
I think I have heard at least four different versions of the alleged history of the Franklin quote over the years (one of which being that it is apocryphal and he never actually said it), all from people willing to tie themselves into a knot to avoid the words having their ordinary plain meaning. It's a rhetorical device, not a history book. A lot of other people have said the same thing over the years, but if you attribute it to them instead, the words are still the same and so is the meaning intended to be conveyed by the people using the quote now. On top of that, the quote still can't be used for what you're using it for, because giving up the power to tax (note also that at the time the taxes had to be apportioned) is not at all the same thing as usurping the power to infringe rights held by the people.

coliveira 6y ago

When you go out to the streets, you're not putting just yourself in danger. You're transmitting a virus that can kill lots of innocent people, including health care workers, essential workers, senior citizens, etc.

caconym_ 6y ago

Serious question: would you make the same argument about censoring anti-vaccination views? Reopening the country has undeniably turned into a political issue, and one thing we know for certain about Facebook and social media in general is that they are rife with political disinformation. I don't think it's accurate to explain this activity as the speech of "ordinary people" when there seems to be just as much evidence, if not more, that most Americans are concerned about COVID-19, and that these campaigns to organize protests are barely-disguised astroturfing. See also Trump's "LIBERATE $STATE" tweets. I think Facebook is terrible and should be destroyed, but I must admit they have a very challenging problem on their hands in distinguishing malicious, manipulative speech from ignorant speech, and ignorant speech from speech that goes against the majority opinion but is, in fact, correct. And even if they can classify content correctly most of the time, how should they deal with all those categories and all the shades of grey within them? Do you think they should turn a blind eye to political disinformation? Do you think they should enable the spread of manipulative ignorance, theft of elections, and so on? Given that some people will disagree with everything they do, and that at the scale of billions of users they will invariably fuck up a lot of individual cases, I think banning astroturfed campaigns to get people out in the streets blocking ambulances and harassing medical personnel during a global pandemic is A-OK. The people propping these things up should be fucking ashamed of themselves, but I know they aren't capable of such things. This activity has nothing in common with good-faith speech questioning the value of these lockdowns.

jacques_chester 6y ago

If these were private matters affecting only particular individuals as a consequence of their particular decisions, then yes, I would broadly be open to allowing private choices. But it's not. Folks breaking shelter-in-place orders impose a non-trivial risk on everyone else. This is a classic externality problem and the classic answer, if a market mechanism cannot be formed, is regulation. Since viruses don't respect cap-and-trade schemes, we are stuck with what we have and we should absolutely punish those who impose substantial risks (2% is absurdly high, are you kidding?) on the rest of us against our will.

mindslight 6y ago

I'd buy into the argument that people should be free to make their own risk choices, if most people were in the position to make their own choice at all. Unfortunately for many, needing to go to work to pay rent is not a choice. Closing non-essential businesses is one of the few avenues of collective action available. It's horribly unequal to essential employees, but it's better than everyone simply being forced to carry on as normal, especially without PPE or new procedures. What is shutdown and what is open certainly needs to be refined. (Simple example: there is a private park near me that is closed, in spite of it being a good place to get out of the house while distancing) But it's awfully hard to have nuanced discussion when it's drown out by obtuse ignorant nonsense.

dchichkov 6y ago

It is a risk to let the virus burn through uncontrolled. You might get outcome similar to the second wave of Spanish Flu - https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurge... Evolutionary pressure on the virus should be towards a "wimpy virus", not a virus that "has the power to kill a perfectly healthy young man or woman within 24 hours of showing the first signs of infection". And yes, it is important to balance the economic damage and public health risk. And it is important to take into consideration that there is a public health risk from economic damage. In practice, the solution is probably pretty simple. The economy should be reopened in a controlled manner, in a few months. Sport events, concerts, conferences should stay closed, until there are either: antivirals, herd immunity or vaccines.

lkrubner 6y ago

"Praising the strategy of these countries should be authorized." I've heard variations on this argument made 3 of the last 5 days by the President Of the United States. In what sense is this not authorized? The most powerful person in the world is promoting variations on this idea. Also, turn on Fox News and they have been making this argument almost continuously for the last 72 hours. No one is censoring them. Indeed, if you watch that channel, you might think this argument is the mainstream view. There is nothing wrong with the argument itself, which is why it is getting so much air time. Still, the actual gatherings that are being organized are a different issue. Until there is more transparency about who is funding the anti-quarantine movement, a certain caution would be wise, otherwise we are potentially stumbling into another fiasco like the 2016 election.

fyfy18 6y ago

> Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. The problem with this argument is that there isnt that much data around, and what is available is only understandable to a subset of the population as it's in scientific papers. If you let everyone decide, what would happen is most people would listen to their authority figures which would be their governor, mayor, pastor or news anchor. The problem is those people will each have their own agenda and aren't going to give an unbiased recommendation, and those people don't necessarily have the knowledge themselves to understand the data. What you are saying is similar to saying people should have a choice of whether to smoke or not. The risks of smoking are pretty well known, and its easy to make that call. This is more like deciding whether to take a new party drug - your friends take it and everything is fine, but you've all heard about the story of that couple that died from taking it. (And that doesn't take into account that you can infect others who are more vulnerable than you)

camgunz 6y ago

> People should be able to take a calculated risk. That is not at all what we're talking about here. People should not be able to take a calculated risk with the lives of others. Let me tell you why it's not like driving: the NHTSA reports 102 car fatalities a day in 2016. NYC just got under 500 COVID deaths a day. One city. 5x the fatalities. Compared to a country of 300 million people. This is, by far, the most outrageous, insanely reckless thing I have ever read on HN. I beg you to please, stop doing this. Thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of lives maybe are at stake.

bagacrap 6y ago
you realize when someone dies in a car accident that they may have otherwise lived another 40 or 80 years, whereas with covid they probably had two months.
- modzu 6y ago
  so it's a hard topic nobody wants to think about genuinely but isn't there truth to it? the nursigng homes that are being ravaged the most -- people are there for end of life care. by definition. they are generally under a policy of do not recussitate. thats very different than any hn readers experience (nobody here is commenting as a nursing home patient). this is not to say their lives dont matter but the context does
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > but isn't there truth to it? NO. THERE IS NOT. Less than 50% of COVID deaths are over 75 years old. That means that more than 50% are under 75. A full quarter of deaths are below 64. These are not people dying anyway. These are not people in nursing homes. These are people like you.
    - legostormtroopr 6y ago
      > Less than 50% of COVID deaths are over 75 years old That means more half of the deaths are of people over 75, and 75% of deaths are over 65.

kelnos 6y ago

> People should be able to take a calculated risk. ... with their own lives. You're talking about allowing people to risk other people's lives, and no, that's not ok. > The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew. You're contradicting yourself. If the Diamond Princess is perfectly representative of the world population, then no young people should die, anywhere. But that's not the case -- young people have indeed died from this -- so therefore the Diamond Princess does not give us an accurate picture at all. > Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. [...] But people who want the opposite should be able to express their voice as well. Express their voice, yes, I agree with that. Make their own decision, no, not at all. The average -- even above average -- person does not know how to interpret the fractured data we have right now to the point of being able to make an informed decision. This is one of those frustrating times when we must rely on the people who live and breathe this every day to make those decisions for us. I'm not saying they don't need to explain or show their work, and I'm not saying we need to just blindly trust, but we do need to carefully consider whether we know better than people who are literally trained to know how all this works. (Hint: we don't, and can't, know better.)

llcoolv 6y ago
> ... with their own lives. You're talking about allowing people to risk other people's lives, and no, that's not ok. So, let's ban driving then?
- chimprich 6y ago
  In my country we don't just let people drive however they like on public roads. You have to be above a certain age, have passed a test, not be drunk or stoned, be driving a roadworthy vehicle, and follow many other rules. Your risk to other people's lives is carefully managed.
  - llcoolv 6y ago

growlist 6y ago

Here's a radical idea: allow people that want to ignore lockdown to do so, in exchange for refusal of anything but palliative care if they get sick with Coronavirus.

eveningcoffee 6y ago
You forget that they will go and infect many others until they end in the hospital. That is the major issue with infections diseases.
- growlist 6y ago
  > refusal of anything but palliative care
  - DanBC 6y ago
    > they will go and infect many others
    - growlist 6y ago
      Who have the choice themselves on whether to isolate or otherwise
      - eveningcoffee 6y ago
        This is not acceptable. It is like saying we should not try to catch serial killers because people can just stay at home.

DavidVoid 6y ago

> Several countries have not decided to do a stay-at-home-lockdown including Sweden The Swedish approach is based on the idea that people who have any symptoms at all are able to stay home from work. I really doubt that that approach would work in countries like the US where workers' rights are much weaker. And although Sweden is not in a mandatory stay-at-home lockdown pretty much anyone who is able to work from home is doing so and the streets are much emptier than usual.

SamuelAdams 6y ago

> The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew. The trouble with this assertion is that we don't know if it is statistically valid. Consider the number of crew to the number of passengers on a typical cruise ship. If there were only 20 crewmembers, is that enough to form a valid conclusion of "young people don't die from this disease"? Furthermore, were emergency services able to help every infected passenger on board? Yes, the fatality rate was 2%, but how many were infected and required treatment? The big issue in the states is that if enough people (just 1% in some areas) require treatment, the hospital systems will be overwhelmed and people who have a treatable illness will die due to lack of available resources. So the best thing society can do is either self-isolate to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or hospitals can somehow advocate for legislation to refuse patients with COVID-19 symptoms to prevent their resources from being overwhelmed.