4 ms·

Tried to bring out this salient point here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635489) but seems like HN is mo

Tried to bring out this salient point here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635489) but seems like HN is more interested in pushing the up and down arrows than they are in using that thing between their ears.

sojournerc 6y ago
> If a vaccine is not found, you're bound to have a catastrophe on your hands. > Whether or not you quarantined, the economy would collapse because you would have a massive death toll and paranoia throughout the country. You make assumptions in these two statements without a lot of nuance or support. I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions, encourage social distancing etc etc Why will we have a catastrophe if a vaccine is not found?
- bavell 6y ago
  Agreed. IMO an economic collapse similar or worse than the great depression is much more catastrophic than this pandemic. At least with the pandemic many people are able to make decisions to protect themselves as needed or opt to risk exposure depending on their situation.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  > I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions, encourage social distancing etc etc We tried to do just that in Texas. It failed. Badly. There are multiple reasons why this idea of opening up simply won't work: 1. Many Americans are fundamentally unwilling to go along with social distancing and mask wearing protocols. All it takes is one or two people refusing to self-quarantine to get an entire business sick and force them to shut down. 2. We did nothing to ramp up our testing. In fact our president has been signalling that he wants to reduce testing so that the numbers look better. When individuals were given their own decisions, they went to bars packed in like sardines and caused a second wave to appear.
  - sojournerc 6y ago
    Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks. I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe". Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is. If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think that should be her choice, even considering the risk. We drive on highways, I go outside where mosquitoes carry West-Nile disease, I eat food prepared by someone else at a restaurant, I smoke a cigarette. These are all risk trade-offs that we allow individuals to make their own decision on. Why is _this_ disease, this risk, so different? We're encouraging a sort of generalized agoraphobia - if _you_ don't want to take the risk of going out, then stay home and you'll be perfectly safe. Don't impose that fear on others...
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk. If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area. And this disease much like those is not about you. Arguments you make are inherently selfish because it's about your freedoms but not about the freedoms you take away from others. You are essentially arguing for those that are at risk to remain in permanent lockdown because others can't be bothered to take basic protective measures. You're demanding to take away other people's freedom so you can have marginally more freedom.
      - sojournerc 6y ago
        How does going to a bar take away freedom from others? I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that. There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it. If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to "taking away freedom from others" than we'd better never leave home again since we can never know what pathogen might be hiding out there in the world. If I want to expose myself to such vectors, that's my prerogative. My example of my Grandam willingly taking risk to socialize is nothing like outright dangerous behavior that puts others at risk (speeding 80 in a 30). They are not equivalent.

sojournerc 6y ago

> If a vaccine is not found, you're bound to have a catastrophe on your hands. > Whether or not you quarantined, the economy would collapse because you would have a massive death toll and paranoia throughout the country. You make assumptions in these two statements without a lot of nuance or support. I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions, encourage social distancing etc etc Why will we have a catastrophe if a vaccine is not found?

bavell 6y ago
Agreed. IMO an economic collapse similar or worse than the great depression is much more catastrophic than this pandemic. At least with the pandemic many people are able to make decisions to protect themselves as needed or opt to risk exposure depending on their situation.
fzeroracer 6y ago
> I think the economy would be much better off if we had encouraged self- quarantine for at risk groups, but allowed otherwise healthy people to go about their business. Giving people information to make their own decisions, encourage social distancing etc etc We tried to do just that in Texas. It failed. Badly. There are multiple reasons why this idea of opening up simply won't work: 1. Many Americans are fundamentally unwilling to go along with social distancing and mask wearing protocols. All it takes is one or two people refusing to self-quarantine to get an entire business sick and force them to shut down. 2. We did nothing to ramp up our testing. In fact our president has been signalling that he wants to reduce testing so that the numbers look better. When individuals were given their own decisions, they went to bars packed in like sardines and caused a second wave to appear.
- sojournerc 6y ago
  Right, but the people who went to the bars made that decision despite being aware of the risks. I would much prefer a society that allows people to do dumb things than a nanny-state that purports to keep us "safe". Living is a risky situation. That's just the way it is. If my 97 year old grandma wants to go have a mimosa and socialize, I think that should be her choice, even considering the risk. We drive on highways, I go outside where mosquitoes carry West-Nile disease, I eat food prepared by someone else at a restaurant, I smoke a cigarette. These are all risk trade-offs that we allow individuals to make their own decision on. Why is _this_ disease, this risk, so different? We're encouraging a sort of generalized agoraphobia - if _you_ don't want to take the risk of going out, then stay home and you'll be perfectly safe. Don't impose that fear on others...
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    Except we don't allow people to do dumb things when it puts other people at risk. If your grandma decides to go drive after downing a few mimosas she'll be arrested for driving intoxicated. If she decides to go 80mph on a 30 speed limit road she'll be arrested for putting others at risk. And you can't smoke a cigarette anywhere you want because other people don't want your second hand smoke mucking up the area. And this disease much like those is not about you. Arguments you make are inherently selfish because it's about your freedoms but not about the freedoms you take away from others. You are essentially arguing for those that are at risk to remain in permanent lockdown because others can't be bothered to take basic protective measures. You're demanding to take away other people's freedom so you can have marginally more freedom.
    - sojournerc 6y ago
      How does going to a bar take away freedom from others? I'm not suggesting "permanent lock-down", rather the opposite - those who are at risk are perfectly capable of managing that risk themselves as they see fit - wear a mask - sanitize hands - avoid people - great! no one's stopping that. There were diseases before this one, and there will be others to follow it. If becoming a vector of transmission is equivalent to "taking away freedom from others" than we'd better never leave home again since we can never know what pathogen might be hiding out there in the world. If I want to expose myself to such vectors, that's my prerogative. My example of my Grandam willingly taking risk to socialize is nothing like outright dangerous behavior that puts others at risk (speeding 80 in a 30). They are not equivalent.