3 ms·

I just noticed, your number one point boils down to who cares about the old folks, they are going to die soon anyway. Tells us a lot about you.

quickthrower2 7y ago
I notice this HN habit of reading something until you find something disagreeable and then presumably stop reading (which is the most generous assumption) and then post a negative comment. The writer could have done better in the ordering of the article to avoid this reaction in general, but at least HN should give it a fair chance by reading to the end. Otherwise its like taking a sentence out of context. He also said: > Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding. > The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions.
- robocat 7y ago
  It’s wishful thinking that we can somehow protect the elderly from getting infected while the rest of the population is getting infected. Possibly for individuals at home, but surely not for anyone in a home or hospital who needs nursing. Assuming that very few people remain infectious after catching Covid (jury is still out: there are cases of relapse and continual low level infection - we don’t know how common either is yet). The writer mentions the problem, but lacks suggestions for how we can prevent the infirm from getting infected over the long term. Perhaps in a world with unlimited PPE?
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    That’s a good point. There would still be an element of risk but that’s true for any plan. The lockdowns certainly aren’t without risks of their own. I guess it comes down to which option is least bad.

3 ms·

I just noticed, your number one point boils down to who cares about the old folks, they are going to die soon anyway. Tells us a lot about you.

by ecpottinger 7y ago

quickthrower2 7y ago
I notice this HN habit of reading something until you find something disagreeable and then presumably stop reading (which is the most generous assumption) and then post a negative comment. The writer could have done better in the ordering of the article to avoid this reaction in general, but at least HN should give it a fair chance by reading to the end. Otherwise its like taking a sentence out of context. He also said: > Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding. > The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions.
- robocat 7y ago
  It’s wishful thinking that we can somehow protect the elderly from getting infected while the rest of the population is getting infected. Possibly for individuals at home, but surely not for anyone in a home or hospital who needs nursing. Assuming that very few people remain infectious after catching Covid (jury is still out: there are cases of relapse and continual low level infection - we don’t know how common either is yet). The writer mentions the problem, but lacks suggestions for how we can prevent the infirm from getting infected over the long term. Perhaps in a world with unlimited PPE?
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    That’s a good point. There would still be an element of risk but that’s true for any plan. The lockdowns certainly aren’t without risks of their own. I guess it comes down to which option is least bad.