561–568 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
U.K. 166 deaths per million with a full lockdown in place
UK was the country that first wanted to isolate the elderly and get young people infected and immune. The current case count is a reflection of that rather than the lockdown which came afterwards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why limited to neighboring countries though? The fact is Sweden has no full quarantine and they have less infection rates and less fatalities per capita than many countries with full quarantine. It's clear that full quarantine may not be effective.
Full quarantine is effective, almost tautologically so. If the virus is still increasing exponentially then whatever quarantine measures you do have in place simply aren't full enough yet. At the extreme end of a full quarantine, imagine everyone is prohibited from leaving their homes for any reason, and once a week someone in a fully sealed bunny suit comes by to drop off food for the week. That's a pretty darn full…
But is it more effective than simple washing hands and social distancing?
I think Sweden is proving that it's not.
Additionally short of what you're proposing...full total lockdown...the virus isn't going anywhere...it will be in society when we emerge from quarantine immunologically naeive ready for another wave of Corona.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to compare states with comparable population density, cultural norms and roughly comparable initial cases. Climate plays a huge role in how much people engage in potential infection prone activities. E.g. like being outside in parks, beaches.
Uk is on full quarantine. There are no cultural norms because there's no culture there at the moment. It should have less than Sweden if quarantine is effective.
In Sweden, there seem to have been only very few initial cases and the virus seems to be slow to spread there - it probably helps that Sweden is over 80% larger than the UK and has only 1/6 of the population. Also, at this time of the year it is much colder than the UK, less reason to be outside in big groups.
If you check the infection graphs, in the UK the quarantine finally seems to have an impact on the infection numbers, which stopped growing a while ago. Sweden still seems to have growing infection numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and we just all hold our breaths and hope none of them make bad choices. Personally I would call this “government irresponsibility”, but I guess we’ll find how it turns out within a few more weeks. This approach absolutely infuriates me too, and it is the fault of "the government", but I am very curious what a more precise explanation is. Is it the current individuals in government? The ongoing culture within gover…
A good first step would be for you to stop supporting racist misogynistic islamophobic homophobic xenophobic narcissistic politicians who are pathological liars, science deniers, global warming deniers, and who don't believe doctors and epidemiologists, but do spread racist conspiracy theories.
> A good first step would be for you to stop...
I have no hesitation whatsoever to admit that your approach may be correct, and mine incorrect, but I suspect this feeling is not mutual - is my intuition correct?
The problem (or more accurately, a problem) we have under our current form of democracy (in the US) is that we have an infinite number of variables that can be taken into consideration (and different people will select a different set for analysis), but we are only offered a single choice, with two options: Democrat or Republican.
I can respect your decision (analysis), and would be happy to devote literally hours to listening to your reasoning (I've extended such an offer in the past, as you may recall), but I suspect you don't feel the same way. Rather, it seems to me that you are determined to not like me, and accordingly, will look only at variables that support your conclusion, even if the values of those variables are absolutely incorrect (because they are based not on evidence, but rather speculation within your own mind).
In all of our conversations, you exhibit (so I perceive) extreme confidence and certainty in your beliefs, as well as an utter lack of concern (if not even realization of the very possibility) for the notion that you may not 100% correct in your beliefs - not just about me and my true beliefs, but also what is the necessary set of actions to achieve your (and my!) intended goals. If my perception is accurate, and if you are unwilling/unable to realize and rectify this situation, it seems reasonable that the consequences of this is that you will continue to have a highly flawed model of me in your mind.
I would recommend thinking of such ideas via mental experiments, such as: if one wrote software with such disregard for the importance of accurate analysis of reality, would you expect your program to function correctly? I suspect not. So why then would you expect different behavior when it comes to human and societal interactions? After all, are humans not in a sense extremely analogous to hardware that is executing software, all within a shared, interactive environment? I like to conceptualize humanity as a kind of MMORPG, not only because it's fun to look at it this way, but I think there is great utility in viewing things from a third person perspective, as it can often be helpful in achieving greater emotional separation from the situation, and therefore realize clearer thinking.
Furthermore, I speculate that if this sort of behavior is occurring at scale (across the broad population), the consequence may be that we may never be able to turn this ship around, and things will continue to get worse - ironically, bring about the very opposite of what your intended goal is!
Once again, I am putting a stake in the ground. Throwing down the gauntlet. I challenge you to engage in a proper conversation, with the goal (at least) of discovering what I really believe. I'm not asking that you agree with me, but only to face what my beliefs really are. Thus far, you[1] have been unwilling to engage in a serious, nuanced conversation, or even admit (consider?) that there could be value in such an exercise. You are free to do as you choose of course, as am I. I will continue to occasionally post comments from my perspective, and be open to proper discussion and challenges from all sides. If you choose to continue to respond with downvotes and inaccurate, hateful accusations, that is your right (although technically, it is very much counter to the HN Guidelines). And even though you may feel hate for me, and "people like me" (or so you subconsciously speculate), I will not feel hate for you, or people who hold beliefs similar to yours, because that road leads to hell.
[1] Actually, this is a bit harsh in that it could easily be interpreted as an assertion that you are unique in this regard. Rather, quite the opposite is true - it is my perception that I haven't encountered a single comment that has indicated a willingness to properly consider my fairly unique perspective. To be clear, this is not an assertion that all people on HN are in some way guilty of wrongdoing, but only that I have not encountered anyone "doing the right thing", for my definition of "the right thing" (dealing with this subset of reality honestly and ethically).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uk is on full quarantine. There are no cultural norms because there's no culture there at the moment. It should have less than Sweden if quarantine is effective.
The question is: how many infections happened before the quarantine was established? In UK the quarantine was started way to late. That the UK has in common with Italy, Spain and France. But in all these countries, a massive infection rate has been drastically reduced by the quarantine. In Sweden, there seem to have been only very few initial cases and the virus seems to be slow to spread there - it probably helps th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good first step would be for you to stop supporting racist misogynistic islamophobic homophobic xenophobic narcissistic politicians who are pathological liars, science deniers, global warming deniers, and who don't believe doctors and epidemiologists, but do spread racist conspiracy theories.
Hi Don, I am always glad to hear from you (and I mean that 100% sincerely, though that may be hard for you to believe) - I think our perspectives and axioms are so incredibly divergent, that with a little effort on both our parts, a tremendous amount of learning could be achieved from proper discussion. > A good first step would be for you to stop... I have no hesitation whatsoever to admit that your approach may be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Don, I am always glad to hear from you (and I mean that 100% sincerely, though that may be hard for you to believe) - I think our perspectives and axioms are so incredibly divergent, that with a little effort on both our parts, a tremendous amount of learning could be achieved from proper discussion. > A good first step would be for you to stop... I have no hesitation whatsoever to admit that your approach may be…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Let me know when you muster up courage proportional to your ego, and maybe we can have a discussion that consists of something more than insults and evasive tactics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Google and Facebook are going to deliver a very surprising result.
Well, ad revenue is gonna be off a cliff in the next quarterly earnings, but I don't think that's going to be a surprise. Good thing they have so much cash saved up.
IT's clear, though, that GOOG and FB are losing major ad clients. The entire travel industry is not advertising and they spent bank trying to convince you to try some new hotel chain.