4 ms·

I don’t understand how people can see a global response and repercussions like this and then politicize their local government’s attempt to keep the R0 below 2.

I don’t understand how people can see a global response and repercussions like this and then politicize their local government’s attempt to keep the R0 below 2.5.

Nasrudith 6y ago
It seems to be a messed up human tendency to turn their negatives into an identifier and the identifier into a positive. Essentially because they don't want to face up to the possibility of a mistake or that they could be better. So it is far easier to not only just say 'this is fine' while their house burns down around them but that people with non-flaming houses 'don't know what they are missing'.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LoSboccacc 6y ago
a day ago there were estimate that anout basically everyone in NYC has having been in contact with the virus at some point and the city doesn't look like a wasteland. lethality was grossly overestimate and subsequent decision built off not only partial and incomplete data, but flat out wrong. would full lock down have been the best course of action? probably still so. but the extent and duration and especially now follow up actions seem extremely exaggerated. there's quite a difference in Italy for example from the "hundreds new cases a day" in march, with a unknown size pool of undetected cases, and "hundred new cases a day" but everyone else is fine and contact tracing will find the rest. the issue is political because the GDP and welfare budget are intertwined. and then there's the big hairy issue with schooling. the world isn't black and white and fighting the virus can't be the sole priority for six months, let alone one or more years. but both now and yesterday people with a wide view of the issue were basically ostracized and chased away as if they were flat earther or antivaxxer. it's about time people start questioning what is the long term plan and if the previous decisions were data driven or scare driven.
- joshuahughes 6y ago
  “but both now and yesterday people with a wide view of the issue were basically ostracized and chased away as if they were flat earther or antivaxxer” Agreed. I’ve been quite taken aback, seeing HN’s response to Covid threads. I’ve always assumed the community was willing to ask tough questions and entertain alternative points of view that are backed by data, but with Covid there’s a complete unwillingness to think about anything other than “deaths bad, lockdown good”. It’s a shame that more nuanced comments get voted down so hard as they’re important to discuss too. My theory: There must be something about us tech industry types that makes a ‘germaphobic’ response more likely. For instance, the WHO have said there’s no point wiping down food packaging because it just isn’t a vector for the virus. Yet I’ve seen dozens of HN comments about doing this and/or leaving groceries in quarantine for days. It really isn’t rational or logical and yet it’s this response that gets the support of the community. Very strange.
  - ImaCake 6y ago
    Just as an alternative perspective, I fully support lockdowns. But I have noted the opposite response on here compared to your observation; lots of people are arguing against the lockdowns on HN. Maybe we see what we want to see rather than what is actually there? Seems like a typical human bias.
    - joshuahughes 6y ago
      Yes, clearly “lots of people are arguing against the lockdowns on HN“. My point is that if you do that, you will usually get downvoted to death. Just like everything else these days, too many people are adopting a black or white stance on a topic when actually there’s tons of murky grey in the middle. I see way too many rational and reasonable comments get totally destroyed because they dared to question the status quo. It’s an unhealthy environment to exist in.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    I think people crave rules, even if there's no evidence the rules are useful. And in today's political/social environment - rules give the strict adherents tacit permission to abuse people (they don't even have to violate the rules) who even so little as question or critically examine the rules.

I don’t understand how people can see a global response and repercussions like this and then politicize their local government’s attempt to keep the R0 below 2.5.

Nasrudith 6y ago

It seems to be a messed up human tendency to turn their negatives into an identifier and the identifier into a positive. Essentially because they don't want to face up to the possibility of a mistake or that they could be better. So it is far easier to not only just say 'this is fine' while their house burns down around them but that people with non-flaming houses 'don't know what they are missing'.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

LoSboccacc 6y ago

a day ago there were estimate that anout basically everyone in NYC has having been in contact with the virus at some point and the city doesn't look like a wasteland. lethality was grossly overestimate and subsequent decision built off not only partial and incomplete data, but flat out wrong. would full lock down have been the best course of action? probably still so. but the extent and duration and especially now follow up actions seem extremely exaggerated. there's quite a difference in Italy for example from the "hundreds new cases a day" in march, with a unknown size pool of undetected cases, and "hundred new cases a day" but everyone else is fine and contact tracing will find the rest. the issue is political because the GDP and welfare budget are intertwined. and then there's the big hairy issue with schooling. the world isn't black and white and fighting the virus can't be the sole priority for six months, let alone one or more years. but both now and yesterday people with a wide view of the issue were basically ostracized and chased away as if they were flat earther or antivaxxer. it's about time people start questioning what is the long term plan and if the previous decisions were data driven or scare driven.

joshuahughes 6y ago
“but both now and yesterday people with a wide view of the issue were basically ostracized and chased away as if they were flat earther or antivaxxer” Agreed. I’ve been quite taken aback, seeing HN’s response to Covid threads. I’ve always assumed the community was willing to ask tough questions and entertain alternative points of view that are backed by data, but with Covid there’s a complete unwillingness to think about anything other than “deaths bad, lockdown good”. It’s a shame that more nuanced comments get voted down so hard as they’re important to discuss too. My theory: There must be something about us tech industry types that makes a ‘germaphobic’ response more likely. For instance, the WHO have said there’s no point wiping down food packaging because it just isn’t a vector for the virus. Yet I’ve seen dozens of HN comments about doing this and/or leaving groceries in quarantine for days. It really isn’t rational or logical and yet it’s this response that gets the support of the community. Very strange.
- ImaCake 6y ago
  Just as an alternative perspective, I fully support lockdowns. But I have noted the opposite response on here compared to your observation; lots of people are arguing against the lockdowns on HN. Maybe we see what we want to see rather than what is actually there? Seems like a typical human bias.
  - joshuahughes 6y ago
    Yes, clearly “lots of people are arguing against the lockdowns on HN“. My point is that if you do that, you will usually get downvoted to death. Just like everything else these days, too many people are adopting a black or white stance on a topic when actually there’s tons of murky grey in the middle. I see way too many rational and reasonable comments get totally destroyed because they dared to question the status quo. It’s an unhealthy environment to exist in.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  I think people crave rules, even if there's no evidence the rules are useful. And in today's political/social environment - rules give the strict adherents tacit permission to abuse people (they don't even have to violate the rules) who even so little as question or critically examine the rules.