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

“I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 373 posts

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#91

Post by ALittleLight »

TuringTest wrote: post #34
9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you proposing a centrally planned economy, or how do you intend to ensure that people work only in allowable jobs and produce only acceptable products and services?

There's an alternative model: that people who do nothing productive don't work at all in producing silly products and services, and they can spend their time doing things they enjoy instead. https://harpers.org/archive/1932/10/in-praise-of-idleness/

Who would choose to spend time working though if they could do whatever they wanted instead without cost?

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#92

Post by kkwteh »

netsharc wrote: post #49
TuringTest wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ``drumroll`` scaling back shit that nobody needs. Maybe, but what do you do with people whose livelihood depend on those superfluous bullshit jobs? Until we have a system that guarantees a right to life even if you do nothing productive , those busyworks are used to justify giving food, shelter and healthcare to those people.

The sane/benovelent governments will probably switch to universal basic income, i.e. go deep into debt and just pay everyone money to live. And no, actually going into debt is not a huge problem, ask Keynes, or what happened in WW2; it was an emergency and governments borrowed and borrowed with no fear.

Going into debt is a big problem if it eats up all of your tax revenue to service it. The WW2 debt was managed by growing the economy to the point where the debt became a small fraction of tax revenue. It seems impossible for modern economies to grow like that today.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#93

Post by andybak »

jonrimmer wrote: post #36
ekianjo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tracking and constraining infectious citizens by all developed countries. That would be ridiculous if you get to millions of people infected, because that would effectively destroy all economic activity. Even during the 1918-1919 epidemic with high mortality rates people did not stop going to work. Our strategy to isolate ourselves is fine if it's short term but it can't continue more than a few months.

Tracking and testing doesn't destroy economic activity. Complete lock-downs, as we're seeing in China, Italy, Spain and soon elsewhere do. But it does let you get a grip on the situation when you have millions infected. However you're right that you can't maintain that long term, so what's the off-ramp? South Korea has proved you can do mass testing and tracking which, combined with voluntary and state-enforced contr…

Just to counter the impression that the whole of China is in lockdown: https://twitter.com/DanielFalush/status/1239049733974433798

You can still go clubbing in Shanghai with certain restrictions.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#94

Post by simonh »

black_puppydog wrote: post #15

I don't agree with the conclusion. We can scale down our economies and still maintain production of essentials by ` `drumroll` ` scaling back shit that nobody needs. Starting with an overblown healthcare admin system in the US, IMHO, but also including less inflammatory non-essential things like yet another range of plastic toys and luxury perfumes and and and. Essentially in this scenario, we should take this as an…

First off, that book is terrible and most of those jobs are perfectly valid. However lets assume we 'eliminate all the bullshit jobs', what do those people do, go home and self-isolate until there's a safe cheap vaccine?

No, in this theoretical ideal perfect world you are proposing we conjured into existence in a matter of months, they would take up productive jobs. So they would be going to work, meeting people, socialising and spreading the virus just as much as they were before. It's no the same problem.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#95

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

101404 wrote: post #64
netsharc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sane/benovelent governments will probably switch to universal basic income, i.e. go deep into debt and just pay everyone money to live. And no, actually going into debt is not a huge problem, ask Keynes, or what happened in WW2; it was an emergency and governments borrowed and borrowed with no fear.

UBI could be possible in a closed society, but not if you are open for uncontrolled influx of people from outside your society. Because the offer "get free money" is just too good. There was the choice what to focus on, and we decided we wanted uncontrolled immigration. Fair choice, but the consequence is that UBI won't work anymore.

I’m not aware of any place that has a completely open boarder.

What are you referring to here?

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#96

Post by Splatter »

tomp wrote: post #71
netsharc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sane/benovelent governments will probably switch to universal basic income, i.e. go deep into debt and just pay everyone money to live. And no, actually going into debt is not a huge problem, ask Keynes, or what happened in WW2; it was an emergency and governments borrowed and borrowed with no fear.

I never understood this logic, and I understand it even less now. If we have the industrial / economic capacity to provide everyone with necessities of life (food, water, heat, shelter, ...), why not just provide that directly?! No need to go via the "money -> essentials" route... that way you're only indirectly making landlords and grocery store owners rich. For this crisis, people are saying, give $1000 to everyone…

> and a few months of rent amnesty for everyone (including businesses) (it's not like houses will disappear if somebody doesn't pay the rent).

This is being proposed where I live. I'm curious to know who, in this situation, pays the owners of the rental properties for the use of the house, for the expenses and maintenance, for the employees, plumbers, electricians, and contractors, etc. And what about lost profits due for the assumption of the risk of buying properties for the purpose of providing homes for people to live?

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#97

Post by lbeltrame »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #61
ohazi wrote: post #4

> How long immunity lasts for following covid-19 infection is the biggest unknown. Comparison with other Coronaviridae suggests it may be relatively short-lived (i.e. months). Anyone have sources for this? I've been skeptical of the rumors about reinfection, because they seem to be based on tests coming back positive after recovery, but the tests are rt-PCR based, and your body will be shedding leftover bits of RNA a…

It's probably accurate. But the assumption that this is a game changer is more questionable. This variant of CV is fairly infectious and makes some people very ill. It also kills a non-trivial percentage. So the worst case is an incredibly dangerous virus that mutates every season. We'd have to get used to taking extreme measures, or losing around 1% of the population every year. But the usual trend is for viruses to…

> We'd have to get used to taking extreme measures

Or develop drugs to treat the people who become very sick (up to bilateral interstitial pneumonia) to avoid or reduce hospitalization. On the medium term this looks like a possibility (vaccines, if they work, would help long term). If that happens, I believe your scenario of a "less dangerous cycle" will likely materialize earlier. People would still get sick, but at least we'd be able to treat them.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#99

Post by robocat »

black_puppydog wrote: post #15

I don't agree with the conclusion. We can scale down our economies and still maintain production of essentials by ` `drumroll` ` scaling back shit that nobody needs. Starting with an overblown healthcare admin system in the US, IMHO, but also including less inflammatory non-essential things like yet another range of plastic toys and luxury perfumes and and and. Essentially in this scenario, we should take this as an…

> scaling back shit that nobody needs

The “shit” nobody needs is the main point of living: music, art, science, sharing, pets; the crap you desire versus the essentials.

If we only got what we needed to survive (food, shelter) that would be a pointless and depressing life.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#100

Post by londons_explore »

mxcrossb wrote: post #52
londons_explore wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a future where you do a swab test every morning while brushing your teeth. If you had any of thousands of infectious diseases, you're required to stay home. The test would take only 5 minutes, and you get fined if you don't do it, and receive sick pay if you test positive. I imagine that within a few years of rolling this out, common colds might be a thing of the past, and overall worker productivity higher r…

You’d have to have a staggeringly low false positive rate to be able to do this, because you’d basically have no prior, and you’re testing for multiple things.

If a false positive results in someone staying home and getting paid, one can easily work out the economic cost of that. Then it becomes a simple economics problem - how much should the government spend on improving the test to regain a bit of productivity.

A false negative (someone going about their day despite being infectious) is just the status quo, and has served us well for centuries.

Post reply on HN