Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#141

Post by dang »

themagician wrote: post #101
keeganjw wrote: post #15

They make a good point in this article, I just wish Newsweek and other media outlets would get this pissed off about climate change. "Old and unafraid of the climate crisis? Good for you. Now stop killing future generations." If we're mobilizing to stop a pandemic, why the hell aren't we mobilizing to stop climate change? I know this is going to get downvoted into oblivion, I just wanted to say it.

[flagged]

Please stop posting flamebait to HN. We don't want generational flamewars here, in addition to the other kinds of flamewar we don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#142

Post by atomi »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #129
celdon25 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe the best way to become a home owner in SF in the near future is to run around infecting everyone there ASAP. Maybe this outbreak is the first of more to come and that this is actually a wake-up call that we shouldn't be glorifying or desiring residence in such densely populated areas like we have been.

People comparing it to the flu do have one thing right. This will likely be a new ever-present thing in our lives with rapid mutation and seasonal outbreaks. USUALLY these things get less deadly over time due to evolutionary pressures. It will be interesting to see if this has lasting impacts on our social norms and, like you mentioned, desire for high density living.

Edit: I just looked this up and MERS is still around as well. 2019 had 212 confirmed worldwide cases.

Epidemiology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_respiratory_syndro...

This is from 2015: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-33042036/south-korea-...

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#143

Post by chrisco255 »

shawnb576 wrote: post #118
chrisco255 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is dying from global warming. It's a sea level rise of 2-3mm a year. Less than 11,000 people a year die from natural disasters, which is near all-time lows despite a rising population. 100 years ago, it was common for at least 1,000,000 people a year to die from natural disasters. Thanks to technology, including internal combustion vehicles and electricity, that number has dropped dramatically. Crop yields are…

> Nobody is dying from global warming. This is definitely not true now and will be less true in future. And its a very narrow view - climate change is spreading misery and destruction at massive scales. - More powerful hurricanes and cyclones kill people directly then many more through disease, starvation, homelessness, etc. - The Australian fires killed 1 BILLION animals. [1] - India is running out of water [3] - Oc…

Deaths are down 99% over the last 100 years. From 1,000,000+ a year in (as many as 3,000,000 people a year died from natural disasters in the 30s!) This despite a population increase of almost 5x in that time frame. Follow my link in the parent comment and zoom out to 1900 on natural disaster deaths. It's not even close to what our ancestors were dealing with. We're at near all time lows.

That is thanks to tech. Less people are dying from all natural disasters than they were 100 years ago. We have emergency response vehicles, we have satellite communication and early warning signs for impending disasters, we have better response systems that while imperfect far exceed what were available 100 years ago. We have worldwide wireless phone coverage and many countries that didn't even have phones 100 years ago can now dial for help in an emergency.

The Aussie fires are nothing new. This happens every couple of decades in Australia and has occurred for thousands of years. The whole history of weather in Australia is drought, flood, drought, flood, rinse, repeat.

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-envir...

Stop blaming EVERY occurrence of weather on elevated CO2 levels. It makes zero sense from a thermodynamic perspective. There are systems in the climate that are completely outside of our control, and they cause weather and climate to change. Some small fraction of that is due to CO2.

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#144

Post by ziheck »

brianTheDog wrote: post #124
balls187 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.

Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.

Because humans are more than their immune systems - I'd argue the Salk made society far stronger than a society requiring polio immunity as a precondition to live

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#145

Post by graeme »

aazaa wrote: post #87
graeme wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is substantially better to respond to article content, not headlines. Authors don’t write their headlines. It would be better if they did, but they don’t. So if you argue against the headline only, you argue against a strawman. (It’s fine to address the headline as well, as that gets a lot of attention. But don’t attribute it to the author)

The headline is what brought many participants to this discussion. It's a part of the article, and comment-worthy. This looks like an editorial, for which it seems that at least some authors choose their own titles. For example, see: > Use a catchy title that ties into the theme of your piece. The title is what the reader sees first. Your title should entice the reader. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/writing-op-eds…

I specifically said the title is worth commenting on. Just not the only thing or the main argument.

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#146

Post by ajross »

jshevek wrote: post #111
ajross wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not talking about mainstream scientists. Then who are you talking about?

> Then who are you talking about? This question is so strange I don't know where to begin. Should I look up the percentage of the population that are scientists? Should I pull up an Amazon list of books popular in the 70s and 80s dealing with climate change? Should I start listing various forms of dysfunction in the 4th estate? Should we talk about the culture of activists? Disseminating scientific knowledge correctl…

OK, start with those. I mean, your point upthread is that you didn't personally believe all the good science of the last 30 years because of some "extremists", which now apparently includes the entirety of the media and political left. I think that's a pretty ridiculous argument, and am challenging you to give me some specifics to focus the discussion.

You don't get to wave this away. Let's see who you're talking about.

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#147

Post by jshevek »

brianTheDog wrote: post #124
balls187 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That happens routinely, usually but not always, if society deems your free will is a threat to it.

Doesn’t seem logical. Why protect someone with such a weak immune system so they can pass it on to the next generation? That makes society weaker.

How would you feel if I identified some quality that you have and decided you were not worth protecting because of the result it has on society?

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#148

Post by manicdee »

volkk wrote: post #80
sli wrote: post #44

This is real easy to say to people who largely don't get sick days, oftentimes don't have PTO, and are far more likely to be unable to absorb a week without pay. If I take off work because I'm sick, I simply lose that money. Young people continue life like nothing is wrong because doing otherwise is not an option.

you're focusing only on one uncontrollable thing. the point is to be responsible and lower as much as possible the daily contact you have with people for a while. there are plenty of yuppies where I live who still dont mind going to extremely hot and packed yoga classes, or going out to bars or partying, etc etc. none of that is required, at all, in your daily life.

This article is exclusively about young people, not middle aged folks with the money for things like yoga classes and a social life outside the workplace.

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#149

Post by manicdee »

brianTheDog wrote: post #98
tdhoot wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we also owe it to the immunocompromised? Yes? For example, get your vaccines so those who cannot get them have herd immunity.

Ah so people should have free will taken away.

We also have our freedoms limited by:

- road rules - murder being a criminal offence - the concept of private property

We give up some personal liberties so that everyone has equal liberties including the liberty to enjoy their lives to the extent allowed for everyone.

Re: Young and unafraid of the pandemic? Good for you. Now stop killing people

#150

Post by angelbar »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #49
stetrain wrote: post #31

Lots of reacting to the title here. Which, granted, is sensationalist. I think this nicely sums up the article's point: "It's the civic and moral duty of every person, everywhere, to take part in the global effort to reduce this threat to humanity. To postpone any movement or travel that are not vitally essential, and to spread the disease as little as possible. Have your fun in June, July and August when this—hopefu…

> civic and moral duty of every person According to which canon? I find it slightly narcissistic to claim that I would have a moral right to someone else's behavior when it's well within my ability to take preventative steps for my own safety (Wash my hands, dont leave my house, and in between as my risk tolerance allows). It's a little like someone saying "You all owe me X because I exist". Do we also owe it to the…

Ok, we get it you do not have civic or moral compass. Noted.
Post reply on HN