Live data from Hacker News

L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

variety.com

51–60 of 568 posts

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#51
post #26

I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.

It’s preventing one to three million Americans from dying this year. How much is that worth to you.

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been very hard for me to understand this line of thinking. As I see it, there are so few cases in California because of the measures that have been taken. Do you think California would not have many more cases if the measures were relaxed? Or do you think that the cases would not be all that bad? Or do you think that they would only affect people that you aren't personally concerned about? I'm asking honestly fo…

I think there are open questions about how much our current actions are preventing deaths vs delaying them, what the difference is in terms of number of deaths caused by stay-at-home order vs more mild social distancing, and what downstream effects and deaths will result from a new global depression (especially in the developing world).

Are there any examples of milder social distancing without extensive testing and contact tracing that has been effective? There are certainly a lot of examples of delayed or poorly enforced / adhered social distancing that has proved to be ineffective.

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#53
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. It seems to be forbidden to debate this unfortunately.

It’s not “forbidden” for y’all freethinkers or autodidacts or whatever the term today is to debate such things and to make the claim is dishonest. You’d have to find somebody to debate with , however, and most people are not particularly interested in “hang your Grandma for my stocks”. That is not a restriction of debate, it’s the social dumpstering of people beyond either statistics or empathy and that’s a feature a…

Framing the debate as "your grandma or your 401k" is precisely the gas lighting that prevents rational discussion on this topic

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#54
post #30
post #26

I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.

It seems pretty clear to me that California has so few cases precisely because of the measures it has taken.

what you said is probably true. And it does not contradict “the cure should not be worse than the disease” statement

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#55
post #26

I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.

It's been very hard for me to understand this line of thinking. As I see it, there are so few cases in California because of the measures that have been taken. Do you think California would not have many more cases if the measures were relaxed? Or do you think that the cases would not be all that bad? Or do you think that they would only affect people that you aren't personally concerned about? I'm asking honestly fo…

Not all cities issued a shelter in place in California at the same time. Bay Area was early, and then the state issued one a week later. You think you’d see a hot spot somewhere in the state but doesn’t appear to be the case. Unclear to me that SIP is the main reason why we have few cases vs if we just required face masks and social distancing while keeping more businesses open.

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#56
post #26

I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.

It's been very hard for me to understand this line of thinking. As I see it, there are so few cases in California because of the measures that have been taken. Do you think California would not have many more cases if the measures were relaxed? Or do you think that the cases would not be all that bad? Or do you think that they would only affect people that you aren't personally concerned about? I'm asking honestly fo…

Sweden has far fewer cases and death rate without a massive lockdown. If this disease is really so deadly, why isn’t their country being massively depopulated? Same for states in the US that haven’t implemented any lockdown measures.

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#58
post #20

Things are much worse at Gannett, parent company of usatoday. Personally, being laid off on March 31! Almost every employee is effected at this time, either furloughed for few hours a week, pay cut or let go !!

I'm surprised. I'd think online news would be one of the industries benefitting from this crisis. Is the revenue tied to lack of conversions on online ads?

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#59
post #7

We've already been seeing this to some degree with harder and harder paywalls--which mostly don't work besides lucrative niche and global brands. But I suspect we're increasingly headed towards a case where quality content is only available to those willing and able to pay for it.

Which is how it worked before the internet.

[deleted]

Re: L.A. Times to Furlough Workers as Ad Revenue ‘Nearly Eliminated’

#60
post #26

I’m definitely in the camp that “the cure cannot be worse than the disease” itself. Sitting in California where there are so few cases makes me wonder if the economic toll is totally worth it. Seems like we’ve used a tsunami to put out a campfire.

It's been very hard for me to understand this line of thinking. As I see it, there are so few cases in California because of the measures that have been taken. Do you think California would not have many more cases if the measures were relaxed? Or do you think that the cases would not be all that bad? Or do you think that they would only affect people that you aren't personally concerned about? I'm asking honestly fo…

I personally think something should have been done, but it's an open question if we went too far or not far enough and am willing to listen to the argument that we went too far. It's unlikely what was done was the absolute perfect policy prescription given all the trade offs involved.

Personally I'm looking to Sweden's data, a country that instituted some social distancing measures (no crowds above 50) but not all (Restaurant dine in still open) for some clarity. Their numbers are worse than Denmark's right now but not absurdly so (2x deaths per capita).

Post reply on HN