12 ms·

There is so much we donot know about the long-term effects. It shocks me to Silicon Valley icons like Elon Musk, Paul Graham, and Justin Kan pushing to reopen a

by pl0x 6y ago

There is so much we donot know about the long-term effects. It shocks me to Silicon Valley icons like Elon Musk, Paul Graham, and Justin Kan pushing to reopen and spreading conspiracy theories over building tools to understand the long term effects.

ignoramous 6y ago
> It shocks me to Silicon Valley icons like Elon Musk, Paul Graham, and Justin Kan pushing to reopen... In fairness, they might be pushing to reopen to make the governments do better than rely on lockdown indefinitely. After all, necessity necessitates invention. One way to reopen and still be on top of the epidemic is accurate, fast, and cheap testing [0] at scale, so that, not only could people be tested repeatedly to curb the spread but also get a good overall data on the spread itself. Contact tracing, social distancing, and quarantine remains essential till a vaccine, or a prophylactic / therapeutic treatment is discovered. [0] Grant Sanderson, Simulating an Epidemic, https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/gxAaO2rsdIs https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/gxAaO2rsdIs
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  Have you been tested?[1] I'd rather not get tested multiple times a month for months on end, thanks. 1.https://youtu.be/ssApeG-FBCU?t=1m37s https://youtu.be/ssApeG-FBCU?t=1m37s
  - abdulhaq 6y ago
    I've had many nose and throat swabs over the years, it's nothing
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      Yes if that’s what it takes I’ll do it. The US eradicated Polio by mandating a painful vaccination. We have a long history of public health improvements by collective action. The only difference is that many people now assume bad faith on the part of the government despite the overwhelming majority of us complying with government orders.
  - ignoramous 6y ago
    See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22857384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22857384
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
      The efficacies are worlds apart.
- afarrell 6y ago
  > necessity necessitates invention No, it merely prompts it. If you toss an 8-year-old into the deep end of a pool, does it force him to swim? No. Drowning is an option.
  - fooker 6y ago
    >does it force him to swim? This is more or less how how most animals learn to swim or how birds learn to fly.
    - serf 6y ago
      >This is more or less how how most animals learn to swim or how birds learn to fly. yeah, and they have the losses to show for it. some birds have losses of up to 41% due to falls and premature flight/parental following.[0] [0]: https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/5389/SCtZ-0009-Hi_res.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/5389/SCtZ-0...
      - KarlKemp 6y ago
        This is the most absurd (in the best possible sense) use of sources to win an argument I’ve seen in a while!
      - fooker 6y ago
        Is there an alternative which works better for birds?
    - catalogia 6y ago
      For some reason, this works better for younger children than older children.
steveeq1 6y ago
Paul Graham pushing "conspiracy theories"? Source please.
javagram 6y ago
Please be accurate. I just went to @paulg ‘s twitter feed and just 5 days ago he retweeted a @DrEricDing tweet that “Bifurcation. Reopening is not going to go well...” showing rising cases outside of NY. Elon Musk, on the other hand, has been wrong on this from the get-go - he took a denialist stance in January and has repeatedly predicted things that have been proven false and keeps shifting the goalposts to try to support his original stance of ignoring the virus.
- sabman83 6y ago
  what did he predict and how has it been proven false?
  - JonathanFly 6y ago
    >what did he predict and how has it been proven false? First example that comes to mind is Mar 19: "Based on current trends, probably close to zero new cases in US too by end of April" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960
- rini17 6y ago
  Musk has became indistinguishable from the paper clip maximizer AI...
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    More like erratic PR maximizer AI
deathgrips 6y ago
We know for sure that if we force Americans to stay at home, tens of thousands will kill themselves or be the victims of domestic violence as a result. An untold number of people will go hungry or become homeless. These are certainties. If you want to make a real cost benefit analysis (as opposed to a fear-motivated choice to stay inside), then provide some good data about the long term effects of covid19. Sorry, but saying "it could have terrible effects 5 years after you get infected" isn't good enough. Try again.
- sacred_numbers 6y ago
  That's simply false. If we force people to stay home without providing them with compensation, then yes, people will go hungry and homeless. We have enough wealth to provide for people to make sure that doesn't happen, though. Whether the government will step up is an open question, but this doesn't have to go the way you are suggesting.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    This is much like saying "No one will go homeless if we institute universal basic income". You're completely correct but you're missing the point. I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so. It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. More forced sacrifice and pain does not equal better policy. Worth adding that keeping asymptomatic people at home, which an indiscriminate blanket house containment does, prevents the virus from mutating to become less deadly, which is the typical evolution of viruses. The opposite, of sick soldiers being transferred to hospitals where they spread their viral infection, and asymptomatic soldiers remaining in trenches where they couldn't spread their less deadly strain, led to the second wave of the Spanish flu being far more deadly than the first.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
We know that in the vast majority of cases, the body clears the virus, and there's protection against re-infection for at least some time. We know the infection fatality rate is well below 1%. We know that people under 65 are at far lower risk of suffering severe symptoms and death. And we know it's a virus, so will spread and evolve according to the same evolutionary principles as other viruses. There are of course unknowns, but everything in the world has unknowns. We have to make educated guesses, and decide on a strategy based on them.
- vkou 6y ago
  > We know the infection fatality rate is well below 1%. No, we don't. It seems to be at ~1%. If it were well below 1%, it would be a nothing-burger, and would not have spiked NYC's weekly death rate by a factor of 6.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >If it were well below 1%, it would be a nothing-burger, No, it wouldn't. The other important value is the reproduction rate of the virus. If that value is high, then our healthcare system is going to be overwhelmed just through the sheer number of people that will be infected. So yes, it is looking like the infection fatality rate is well below 1% (as suggested by preliminary studies from NYC, Cali, Germany, and the Netherlands), but because the reproduction rate is so high, and the fact we have no herd immunity, still means thousands (or hundreds of thousands of people) will end up in the ICU. This seems like what happened in NYC and Italy. There was a massive spike in untracked infections in Feb/March. The vast majority of those people cleared the infection, but the tiny percentage of people who had complications, still overwhelmed the availability of ICU beds.
macspoofing 6y ago
The term 'reopen' is ambiguous. I haven't seen anybody serious argue for a pre-COVID reopening. There is an implicit and explicit understanding that re-opening means "re-opening with social distancing, PPE availability and continual sheltering-in-place of at-risk groups". Even the re-openings in states like Georgia are re-openings with major strings attached that place a lot of restrictions on businesses. All that to me makes sense given that coronavirus pandemic is the new normal for the next year or two - a period of time in which we cannot simply shelter-in-place under a lockdown. I have noticed, however, a tendency to vilify those that even suggest an alternative to the current lockdown and a distortion of their positions (such as suggesting that those people care more about money than people, or that they are minimizing the severity of this pandemic). This virus is terrible and is taking a terrible toll on a lot of people as well as national healthcare systems and economies, but there are also people that purposely want to magnify the risks beyond what the data shows. That's not helping anyone either.

by pl0x 6y ago

ignoramous 6y ago

> It shocks me to Silicon Valley icons like Elon Musk, Paul Graham, and Justin Kan pushing to reopen... In fairness, they might be pushing to reopen to make the governments do better than rely on lockdown indefinitely. After all, necessity necessitates invention. One way to reopen and still be on top of the epidemic is accurate, fast, and cheap testing [0] at scale, so that, not only could people be tested repeatedly to curb the spread but also get a good overall data on the spread itself. Contact tracing, social distancing, and quarantine remains essential till a vaccine, or a prophylactic / therapeutic treatment is discovered. [0] Grant Sanderson, Simulating an Epidemic, https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/gxAaO2rsdIs https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/gxAaO2rsdIs

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
Have you been tested?[1] I'd rather not get tested multiple times a month for months on end, thanks. 1.https://youtu.be/ssApeG-FBCU?t=1m37s https://youtu.be/ssApeG-FBCU?t=1m37s
- abdulhaq 6y ago
  I've had many nose and throat swabs over the years, it's nothing
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    Yes if that’s what it takes I’ll do it. The US eradicated Polio by mandating a painful vaccination. We have a long history of public health improvements by collective action. The only difference is that many people now assume bad faith on the part of the government despite the overwhelming majority of us complying with government orders.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22857384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22857384
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
    The efficacies are worlds apart.
afarrell 6y ago
> necessity necessitates invention No, it merely prompts it. If you toss an 8-year-old into the deep end of a pool, does it force him to swim? No. Drowning is an option.
- fooker 6y ago
  >does it force him to swim? This is more or less how how most animals learn to swim or how birds learn to fly.
  - serf 6y ago
    >This is more or less how how most animals learn to swim or how birds learn to fly. yeah, and they have the losses to show for it. some birds have losses of up to 41% due to falls and premature flight/parental following.[0] [0]: https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/5389/SCtZ-0009-Hi_res.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/5389/SCtZ-0...
    - KarlKemp 6y ago
      This is the most absurd (in the best possible sense) use of sources to win an argument I’ve seen in a while!
    - fooker 6y ago
      Is there an alternative which works better for birds?
  - catalogia 6y ago
    For some reason, this works better for younger children than older children.

steveeq1 6y ago

Paul Graham pushing "conspiracy theories"? Source please.

javagram 6y ago

Please be accurate. I just went to @paulg ‘s twitter feed and just 5 days ago he retweeted a @DrEricDing tweet that “Bifurcation. Reopening is not going to go well...” showing rising cases outside of NY. Elon Musk, on the other hand, has been wrong on this from the get-go - he took a denialist stance in January and has repeatedly predicted things that have been proven false and keeps shifting the goalposts to try to support his original stance of ignoring the virus.

sabman83 6y ago
what did he predict and how has it been proven false?
- JonathanFly 6y ago
  >what did he predict and how has it been proven false? First example that comes to mind is Mar 19: "Based on current trends, probably close to zero new cases in US too by end of April" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960
rini17 6y ago
Musk has became indistinguishable from the paper clip maximizer AI...
- me_me_me 6y ago
  More like erratic PR maximizer AI

deathgrips 6y ago

We know for sure that if we force Americans to stay at home, tens of thousands will kill themselves or be the victims of domestic violence as a result. An untold number of people will go hungry or become homeless. These are certainties. If you want to make a real cost benefit analysis (as opposed to a fear-motivated choice to stay inside), then provide some good data about the long term effects of covid19. Sorry, but saying "it could have terrible effects 5 years after you get infected" isn't good enough. Try again.

sacred_numbers 6y ago
That's simply false. If we force people to stay home without providing them with compensation, then yes, people will go hungry and homeless. We have enough wealth to provide for people to make sure that doesn't happen, though. Whether the government will step up is an open question, but this doesn't have to go the way you are suggesting.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  This is much like saying "No one will go homeless if we institute universal basic income". You're completely correct but you're missing the point. I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > I don't see any indication whatsoever that the US will realistically give people enough compensation to stay at home or can afford to do so. It seems to me that is the problem that people should focus on, instead of arguing for lifting measures aimed at protecting people.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong controlled the virus without imprisoning everyone at home. More forced sacrifice and pain does not equal better policy. Worth adding that keeping asymptomatic people at home, which an indiscriminate blanket house containment does, prevents the virus from mutating to become less deadly, which is the typical evolution of viruses. The opposite, of sick soldiers being transferred to hospitals where they spread their viral infection, and asymptomatic soldiers remaining in trenches where they couldn't spread their less deadly strain, led to the second wave of the Spanish flu being far more deadly than the first.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

We know that in the vast majority of cases, the body clears the virus, and there's protection against re-infection for at least some time. We know the infection fatality rate is well below 1%. We know that people under 65 are at far lower risk of suffering severe symptoms and death. And we know it's a virus, so will spread and evolve according to the same evolutionary principles as other viruses. There are of course unknowns, but everything in the world has unknowns. We have to make educated guesses, and decide on a strategy based on them.

vkou 6y ago
> We know the infection fatality rate is well below 1%. No, we don't. It seems to be at ~1%. If it were well below 1%, it would be a nothing-burger, and would not have spiked NYC's weekly death rate by a factor of 6.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >If it were well below 1%, it would be a nothing-burger, No, it wouldn't. The other important value is the reproduction rate of the virus. If that value is high, then our healthcare system is going to be overwhelmed just through the sheer number of people that will be infected. So yes, it is looking like the infection fatality rate is well below 1% (as suggested by preliminary studies from NYC, Cali, Germany, and the Netherlands), but because the reproduction rate is so high, and the fact we have no herd immunity, still means thousands (or hundreds of thousands of people) will end up in the ICU. This seems like what happened in NYC and Italy. There was a massive spike in untracked infections in Feb/March. The vast majority of those people cleared the infection, but the tiny percentage of people who had complications, still overwhelmed the availability of ICU beds.

macspoofing 6y ago

The term 'reopen' is ambiguous. I haven't seen anybody serious argue for a pre-COVID reopening. There is an implicit and explicit understanding that re-opening means "re-opening with social distancing, PPE availability and continual sheltering-in-place of at-risk groups". Even the re-openings in states like Georgia are re-openings with major strings attached that place a lot of restrictions on businesses. All that to me makes sense given that coronavirus pandemic is the new normal for the next year or two - a period of time in which we cannot simply shelter-in-place under a lockdown. I have noticed, however, a tendency to vilify those that even suggest an alternative to the current lockdown and a distortion of their positions (such as suggesting that those people care more about money than people, or that they are minimizing the severity of this pandemic). This virus is terrible and is taking a terrible toll on a lot of people as well as national healthcare systems and economies, but there are also people that purposely want to magnify the risks beyond what the data shows. That's not helping anyone either.