Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

Post by thelean12 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

SerLava wrote: post #110

oldsklgdfth wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, that sounds reasonable. I'm guessing you would need to wait for immunization to be developed for restrictions on high risk people are loosened?

It's not reasonable. You can't quarantine vulnerable people completely. If everyone gets it, every bag of groceries is going to be covered in COVID and an enormous number of quarantined people will die. You can't tell who's going to die from it. You can't have everyone getting sick at once. The death rate will go up tremendously if nobody can get treatment when they have treatable symptoms. This is what "flattening t…

Post by nopriorarrests » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:30 AM UTC

SerLava wrote: post #106

downerending wrote: post #24

It's worth noting that there is a lot of discussion in serious circles (including here on HN) about the balance between too much and not enough with respect to quarantine, lockdown, etc., both in terms of where we are now and what we should do in the near future. I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that. It…

>I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that. Wait, are you talking about the people who want to send everyone back to work now, even though we don't even have masks for doctors yet? Are you saying they are trying to minimize death and misery? Or are we talking about completely different people here?

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:32 AM UTC

downerending wrote: post #124

kevinventullo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery At the risk of sounding inflammatory, there are pretty clearly some actors who would welcome death and misery upon others if it meant they made some money.

It's a quibble, but I'm stretching to think of any example of a person welcoming death and misery upon another for the purpose of monetary profit. Generally those who welcome death do it for other reasons, and those motivated by money accept or ignore others' deaths, but do not particularly welcome them.

Post by TomMckenny » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:33 AM UTC

downerending wrote: post #24

It's worth noting that there is a lot of discussion in serious circles (including here on HN) about the balance between too much and not enough with respect to quarantine, lockdown, etc., both in terms of where we are now and what we should do in the near future. I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that. It…

Post by 0xy » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

debaserab2 wrote: post #120

0xy wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your position that people who will be made unemployed as a result of the economic destruction have enough savings and that we are providing enough benefits for them to survive? 59% of Americans could not afford $1,000 in an emergency. [1] So you're talking about an optimistic runway of $1,000 + a $1,200 one-time benefit payment. The average person will be in poverty within 60 days. I think you're dramatically over…

Of course I’m not. I’m pointing out why looking at the mortality rate of poverty doesn’t support the argument that the economy implications of shelter in place are somehow deadlier than the disease itself. The onus is still on you to make a meaningful argument to support that statement.