4 ms·

The First Modern Pandemic

46 points by duck 7y ago

djsumdog 7y ago
I do not trust Bill Gates at all in this. There is something sinister about him constantly interjecting his cause. He may have tried to change his image with his foundation, but keep in mine he's a business man first. He's not a doctor, and he got rich by squashing out any and all competition but greatly unethical practices. His call to lock down the entire nation was completely out of touch with the fact that 25 million Americans have been without work for nearly two months now.
- senectus1 7y ago
  I work with another Billionaire businessman who is throwing himself head first into philanthropy. They do it because they're A type personalities who have cut their teeth on gnawing through red tape and shitty market issues. They dont want to get into politics because they (rightfully) perceive that they have more power and control as private individuals. I'm no fan of Bill Gates, but I can see what he's doing and why. He's trying to make the world a better place, using power and business acumen. That means he's going to bulldoze people to reach the goal because thats. all. he. knows.
  - aivisol 7y ago
    The danger here, as usually is concentration of too much power in one hands. That is why we have replaced monarchies with democracies mostly. Ultra wealthy individuals are basically able to circumvent democratic political process to reach disproportionate influence unilaterally. While political establishment has some kind of check and balances (in theory) in place, super wealthy can act in a way they see fit unchecked. There is no doubt he acts in good faith, and with best intentions. But if you ask any autocratic leader in the world, they would also say that their actions are in best interests of their nations/people.
    - fapjacks 7y ago
      Yes, but the inverse is a polymorphic decision loop operated by committee, which is just another way of describing a bureaucracy. And as bureaucratic complexity increases (via self-modifying policies and processes), the structure naturally tends toward greater inefficiency, which eventually results in stasis and decision failure, even though the engine of the bureaucracy just keeps chugging along. And of course with large bureaucracies, it's extremely difficult or impossible to gather enough insight and accountability to identify when a bureaucracy's inefficiencies have made some or all of the bureaucracy untenable, because that requires some unilateral force(s) powerful enough to pierce the many various veils of the bureaucracy's components to understand the sum total of its parts and adjudicate on a calculus of its inefficiencies... Which the bureaucracy was built to circumvent to begin with. In the end, bureaucracies can be at least as insane and deadly as any psychopath warlord kings with little fiefdoms raiding their neighbors. Such is the nature of our existence that we will grapple with this delicate balancing act as long as there are humans, and along the way there will be tragedies that seemed avoidable in hindsight, but which were extremely difficult to stop and essentially impossible to predict. And in the aftermath of each, of course, various interested parties will spin the tragedy into attacks on political opponents and outsiders, with the victors taking home the prize of being able to choose the next form of grift to impose on the lucky survivors: "This time, it will be different..."
      - pintxo 7y ago
        I‘d like to have an example for this: „In the end, bureaucracies can be at least as insane and deadly as any psychopath warlord kings with little fiefdoms raiding their neighbors.“ as I have a hard time to find one myself.
        fapjacks 7y ago
        You could start with the bureaucracy of the Holocaust, perhaps?
        pintxo 7y ago
- rickdangerous1 7y ago
  I’m glad someone intelligent, competent and with huge resources is working on these issues. I find your ingratitude perplexing. Bill doesn’t have to spend his time doing this. He could be dedicating his retirement to racing horses, or yachts or something utterly frivolous.
- panarky 7y ago
  Should I trust you, djsumdog, at all on this? 44 days ago you posted this garbage to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22553177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22553177 That article downplayed the threat of the virus, equated it with the seasonal flu, and said it wasn't a real health emergency but an irrational panic. "The coronavirus is quite simply, and almost exclusively, a moral panic." I'll charitably assume that you posted that very wrong article in good faith. Perhaps you posted it but didn't agree with it, maybe you posted it to contradict it. It's hard to tell from your comment history. I've been a harsh critic of Bill Gates and his company for two decades, but on pandemics he saw this coming years ago, and he's investing billions to fight it. Time has proven Gates was right on this. I pay attention to people with a track record of getting it right.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    Wow that feels like a personal attach. Digging up something I posted 44 days ago. 44 days ago, tons of people, on all sides of the political spectrum, thought this was overblown: https://battlepenguin.com/images/politics/covid19-media-flu.png https://battlepenguin.com/images/politics/covid19-media-flu.... Almost all of those news sites have removed or changed those original headlines. And that link was to Psychology Today. You can question how they editorialize sure, but it's hardly Breibart or a tabloid site. Some people get things wrong. A lot of people got it wrong then. People are still getting it wrong now.
    - panarky 7y ago
      Hey, I got it wrong too. I was ready to fly to New York at the end of March until my client wisely cancelled. Maybe those of us who got it wrong should realize we don't know shit, and stop tearing down those who actually know what they're talking about. Gates was right about this, and he's been right for a lot longer than 44 days.
      - djsumdog 7y ago
        That's true. You make a good point. I dunno though. My opinion of the situation went back and fourth each week for a while. It is good to re-evaluate. That's part of good science. Always be aware of your bias and be open. I think it's dangerous to predict the future, which is essentially what we saw before and even now during this. It's very difficult to account for every variable. I hope you're right, but I still don't trust him yet. We'll just have to wait and see.
- gizmo686 7y ago
  His cause of fighting infectious disease? His foundation has a lot of experience and expertise in this subject. It would be a tradegy for it not to apply that in this epidemic.

46 points by duck 7y ago

I do not trust Bill Gates at all in this. There is something sinister about him constantly interjecting his cause. He may have tried to change his image with his foundation, but keep in mine he's a business man first. He's not a doctor, and he got rich by squashing out any and all competition but greatly unethical practices. His call to lock down the entire nation was completely out of touch with the fact that 25 million Americans have been without work for nearly two months now.

senectus1 7y ago
I work with another Billionaire businessman who is throwing himself head first into philanthropy. They do it because they're A type personalities who have cut their teeth on gnawing through red tape and shitty market issues. They dont want to get into politics because they (rightfully) perceive that they have more power and control as private individuals. I'm no fan of Bill Gates, but I can see what he's doing and why. He's trying to make the world a better place, using power and business acumen. That means he's going to bulldoze people to reach the goal because thats. all. he. knows.
- aivisol 7y ago
  The danger here, as usually is concentration of too much power in one hands. That is why we have replaced monarchies with democracies mostly. Ultra wealthy individuals are basically able to circumvent democratic political process to reach disproportionate influence unilaterally. While political establishment has some kind of check and balances (in theory) in place, super wealthy can act in a way they see fit unchecked. There is no doubt he acts in good faith, and with best intentions. But if you ask any autocratic leader in the world, they would also say that their actions are in best interests of their nations/people.
  - fapjacks 7y ago
    Yes, but the inverse is a polymorphic decision loop operated by committee, which is just another way of describing a bureaucracy. And as bureaucratic complexity increases (via self-modifying policies and processes), the structure naturally tends toward greater inefficiency, which eventually results in stasis and decision failure, even though the engine of the bureaucracy just keeps chugging along. And of course with large bureaucracies, it's extremely difficult or impossible to gather enough insight and accountability to identify when a bureaucracy's inefficiencies have made some or all of the bureaucracy untenable, because that requires some unilateral force(s) powerful enough to pierce the many various veils of the bureaucracy's components to understand the sum total of its parts and adjudicate on a calculus of its inefficiencies... Which the bureaucracy was built to circumvent to begin with. In the end, bureaucracies can be at least as insane and deadly as any psychopath warlord kings with little fiefdoms raiding their neighbors. Such is the nature of our existence that we will grapple with this delicate balancing act as long as there are humans, and along the way there will be tragedies that seemed avoidable in hindsight, but which were extremely difficult to stop and essentially impossible to predict. And in the aftermath of each, of course, various interested parties will spin the tragedy into attacks on political opponents and outsiders, with the victors taking home the prize of being able to choose the next form of grift to impose on the lucky survivors: "This time, it will be different..."
    - pintxo 7y ago
      I‘d like to have an example for this: „In the end, bureaucracies can be at least as insane and deadly as any psychopath warlord kings with little fiefdoms raiding their neighbors.“ as I have a hard time to find one myself.
      - fapjacks 7y ago
        You could start with the bureaucracy of the Holocaust, perhaps?
        pintxo 7y ago
rickdangerous1 7y ago
I’m glad someone intelligent, competent and with huge resources is working on these issues. I find your ingratitude perplexing. Bill doesn’t have to spend his time doing this. He could be dedicating his retirement to racing horses, or yachts or something utterly frivolous.
panarky 7y ago
Should I trust you, djsumdog, at all on this? 44 days ago you posted this garbage to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22553177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22553177 That article downplayed the threat of the virus, equated it with the seasonal flu, and said it wasn't a real health emergency but an irrational panic. "The coronavirus is quite simply, and almost exclusively, a moral panic." I'll charitably assume that you posted that very wrong article in good faith. Perhaps you posted it but didn't agree with it, maybe you posted it to contradict it. It's hard to tell from your comment history. I've been a harsh critic of Bill Gates and his company for two decades, but on pandemics he saw this coming years ago, and he's investing billions to fight it. Time has proven Gates was right on this. I pay attention to people with a track record of getting it right.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  Wow that feels like a personal attach. Digging up something I posted 44 days ago. 44 days ago, tons of people, on all sides of the political spectrum, thought this was overblown: https://battlepenguin.com/images/politics/covid19-media-flu.png https://battlepenguin.com/images/politics/covid19-media-flu.... Almost all of those news sites have removed or changed those original headlines. And that link was to Psychology Today. You can question how they editorialize sure, but it's hardly Breibart or a tabloid site. Some people get things wrong. A lot of people got it wrong then. People are still getting it wrong now.
  - panarky 7y ago
    Hey, I got it wrong too. I was ready to fly to New York at the end of March until my client wisely cancelled. Maybe those of us who got it wrong should realize we don't know shit, and stop tearing down those who actually know what they're talking about. Gates was right about this, and he's been right for a lot longer than 44 days.
    - djsumdog 7y ago
      That's true. You make a good point. I dunno though. My opinion of the situation went back and fourth each week for a while. It is good to re-evaluate. That's part of good science. Always be aware of your bias and be open. I think it's dangerous to predict the future, which is essentially what we saw before and even now during this. It's very difficult to account for every variable. I hope you're right, but I still don't trust him yet. We'll just have to wait and see.
gizmo686 7y ago
His cause of fighting infectious disease? His foundation has a lot of experience and expertise in this subject. It would be a tradegy for it not to apply that in this epidemic.