4 ms·
OK so why the negative connotation as if this was a bad thing to do? It was a precautionary step like the rest of the countries of the world were doing. Would y
by seesawtron 6y ago
OK so why the negative connotation as if this was a bad thing to do? It was a precautionary step like the rest of the countries of the world were doing. Would you want to have a leader who ignores to learn from the shit happening to your neighbours and eventually becomes the leader who let thousands die? Look at what's happening in Sweden and UK who reacted too late.
- samizdis 6y ago> OK so why the negative connotation ... This is to be expected in the Daily Mail's treatment of any news item on a subject about which it has a political stance. It is a successful middle-market tabloid, but it is not aging well. Wikipedia's entry is, in my opinion, fairly accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail I was surprised to see a Daily Mail article linked from HN, the newspaper is not renowned for accuracy or considered reporting.
- eesmith 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=dailymail.co.uk https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=dailymail.co.uk shows links about once every other day.
- seesawtron 6y agoA lot by OP, ha!
- samizdis 6y agoThank you - that was an eye-opener. I have been on HN a lot in the past couple of months, and not noticed DM articles. Perhaps I tune them out. Perhaps, also, I read the link title in an HN list and skip over any with gratuitous capitalisation of words for shouty effect. I also dislike tabloid-style tone in titles. Only if the title catches my interest will I strain my eyes (should wear my reading glasses for some screen use, but don't) to see the source. However, there's no way that I should have missed what you pointed out. Thank you again for that.
- phillipseamore 6y agoIsn't it bad to have a PM who makes decisions based on her own personal fear and ignores the advice of professionals? Also this needs to be studied better. For instance Iceland didn't close schools for 0-16, but they have far fewer cases of Covid-19 in children of that age, less than 10% of confirmed cases (and they have been tested proportionally more than other age groups). None needed hospitalization.
- seesawtron 6y agoIn hindsight one can always always compare and argue whether some steps were important or not and to what extent. But when shit is going down and no one has a clue what's the best approach because no one really knows, you have to do the best you can. I am not sure that advice of "professionals" was ignored. Especially in times when "professionals" have no consensus on the steps to take, who do you listen to? Not sure what is "personal fear", I would imagine accountability for not having done enough is a powerful fear, which is not always bad.
- phillipseamore 6y agoThe Norwegian Institute of Public Health didn't want to close schools. It's even concluded that it might have had negative effects (like the numbers in Iceland point to, they've tested 4x as many as Norway). [https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/c9e459cd7cc24991810a0d28d7803bd0/notat-om-risiko-og-respons-2020-05-05.pdf https://www.fhi.no/contentassets/c9e459cd7cc24991810a0d28d78...]
- seesawtron 6y agoI think you are confusing (i) closing schools in March (about which this article is and which I argued was a necessary thing to do as reasoned above) vs (ii) keeping schools closed NOW and not reopening (which is not the discussion here). The FHI report is about letting the schools open now as is being done in neighbouring countries but not yet done in Norway (correct me if it argues that schools should never have been closed). I could imagine that might be the right thing to do seeing that its happening EU-wide.