7 ms·

Well, we really didn't know. This time is giving us time to make better decisions. I am glad we didn't gamble, I still think it was the right decision.

vanniv 6y ago
We did gamble, though. We gambled that the virus was so bad that destroying our economy, wrecking the lives of 10s of millions of people, and seriously risking famine, was all worthwhile to slow the progress somewhat. And boy does it ever seem like we were wrong.
- vanniv 6y ago
  And yet again, the YC downvote brigade is out, silencing all dissent from the death cult. You monsters won't be happy until 00 million are dead, all because you're afraid someone might have some freedom somewhere In the words of George Carlin: you are all diseased.
  - eric_b 6y ago
    There used to be a high percentage of free and critical thinkers in tech (90's/early 2000's era). Those days are sadly gone and now it's same agenda driven groupthink we see everywhere else. Sheep bleating in response to obvious ploys from the media and politicians. sigh (The sheep will commence downvoting me here in just a moment as well)
    - JPKab 6y ago
      The post you were replying to was flagged and removed. Likely due to it getting "meta", which is a trigger for the mods on here who do their best to keep out the flame wars. However, I actually agree with you on this one aspect: I do think the economic success of SV tech companies has changed the psychological profile of people who work in the industry via selection bias. It's really become the well-trodden path to money that attracts a larger percentage of people who aren't very independent minded, in my opinion. It's hard to find data on this, but I see this discrepancy quite readily when interacting with folks at Google/FB now vs. 12 years ago. Hopefully I'm not breaking the rules by posting on this. It's hard to tell.
JPKab 6y ago
All decisions are gambles, if you understand that risks are on all sides. Sweden evaluated the risks of not locking down vs. the risks of shutting down an economy, and made a gamble. We took the same exact game, but bet on the opposite side. As I said in my comment, none of us knew. It's just becoming increasingly apparent, based on data, that we didn't need to lock down as much as we did. The places that didn't lock down and were prophesied to be screwed, well, they just aren't. That's a tough pill to swallow for anyone. Just pointing out, we DID gamble. All of us did. HN readers are in a bubble. Most tech workers had college educated parents, or are recent immigrants to the USA. They don't understand the bulk of the nation they live in, let alone what it's like to be suddenly unemployed or have your small business shut down. Therefore, they only saw the one side of the gamble, and are blinded and insensitive to the economic destruction we have incurred by "playing it safe" on the medical front. I'm not disagreeing with the decision that was made. I'm disagreeing with doubling down on it out of pride and not wanting to admit we were wrong. We were wrong by the way. Keep that in your head, because it's true. The data is in. We were wrong. The rednecks holding "Don't Tread on me" flags, without any data, HAPPENED to be right on this one, because reality is messy and doesn't give a rats ass about your pride, or my pride. I WAS WRONG. I THOUGHT THE LOCKDOWNS WERE THE RIGHT MOVE AT THE TIME. The data says otherwise. I'm willing to admit this, but not many on here are. That's what happens when you live in a bubble. California's horrible wealth inequality (top in the US) makes this even worse. I have neighbors that drive pick-up trucks and run small businesses that have been shut down. If you live in Silicon Valley, you probably don't.
- phreeza 6y ago
  I really wouldn't phrase this as 'you were wrong'. It may well have been the choice best supported by the evidence and the potential outcomes at the time (I certainly believe so). It's just that the current evidence maybe now supports loosening the measures to a degree in most places (I also agree with that). I believe this is a much more useful way to think about it, because it avoids tribal thinking.
- mantap 6y ago
  If you play Russian roulette and survive, was the decision to play Russian roulette a good one? If you make a bad decision but it works out OK, then it's still a bad decision. If you make a good decision and it doesn't work out, you still made a good decision. Sweden made the wrong decision, it doesn't matter that they didn't actually become the next Italy or Spain, it was wrong to risk becoming so.

vanniv 6y ago

We did gamble, though. We gambled that the virus was so bad that destroying our economy, wrecking the lives of 10s of millions of people, and seriously risking famine, was all worthwhile to slow the progress somewhat. And boy does it ever seem like we were wrong.

vanniv 6y ago
And yet again, the YC downvote brigade is out, silencing all dissent from the death cult. You monsters won't be happy until 00 million are dead, all because you're afraid someone might have some freedom somewhere In the words of George Carlin: you are all diseased.
- eric_b 6y ago
  There used to be a high percentage of free and critical thinkers in tech (90's/early 2000's era). Those days are sadly gone and now it's same agenda driven groupthink we see everywhere else. Sheep bleating in response to obvious ploys from the media and politicians. sigh (The sheep will commence downvoting me here in just a moment as well)
  - JPKab 6y ago
    The post you were replying to was flagged and removed. Likely due to it getting "meta", which is a trigger for the mods on here who do their best to keep out the flame wars. However, I actually agree with you on this one aspect: I do think the economic success of SV tech companies has changed the psychological profile of people who work in the industry via selection bias. It's really become the well-trodden path to money that attracts a larger percentage of people who aren't very independent minded, in my opinion. It's hard to find data on this, but I see this discrepancy quite readily when interacting with folks at Google/FB now vs. 12 years ago. Hopefully I'm not breaking the rules by posting on this. It's hard to tell.

JPKab 6y ago

All decisions are gambles, if you understand that risks are on all sides. Sweden evaluated the risks of not locking down vs. the risks of shutting down an economy, and made a gamble. We took the same exact game, but bet on the opposite side. As I said in my comment, none of us knew. It's just becoming increasingly apparent, based on data, that we didn't need to lock down as much as we did. The places that didn't lock down and were prophesied to be screwed, well, they just aren't. That's a tough pill to swallow for anyone. Just pointing out, we DID gamble. All of us did. HN readers are in a bubble. Most tech workers had college educated parents, or are recent immigrants to the USA. They don't understand the bulk of the nation they live in, let alone what it's like to be suddenly unemployed or have your small business shut down. Therefore, they only saw the one side of the gamble, and are blinded and insensitive to the economic destruction we have incurred by "playing it safe" on the medical front. I'm not disagreeing with the decision that was made. I'm disagreeing with doubling down on it out of pride and not wanting to admit we were wrong. We were wrong by the way. Keep that in your head, because it's true. The data is in. We were wrong. The rednecks holding "Don't Tread on me" flags, without any data, HAPPENED to be right on this one, because reality is messy and doesn't give a rats ass about your pride, or my pride. I WAS WRONG. I THOUGHT THE LOCKDOWNS WERE THE RIGHT MOVE AT THE TIME. The data says otherwise. I'm willing to admit this, but not many on here are. That's what happens when you live in a bubble. California's horrible wealth inequality (top in the US) makes this even worse. I have neighbors that drive pick-up trucks and run small businesses that have been shut down. If you live in Silicon Valley, you probably don't.

phreeza 6y ago
I really wouldn't phrase this as 'you were wrong'. It may well have been the choice best supported by the evidence and the potential outcomes at the time (I certainly believe so). It's just that the current evidence maybe now supports loosening the measures to a degree in most places (I also agree with that). I believe this is a much more useful way to think about it, because it avoids tribal thinking.
mantap 6y ago
If you play Russian roulette and survive, was the decision to play Russian roulette a good one? If you make a bad decision but it works out OK, then it's still a bad decision. If you make a good decision and it doesn't work out, you still made a good decision. Sweden made the wrong decision, it doesn't matter that they didn't actually become the next Italy or Spain, it was wrong to risk becoming so.