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

Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 595 posts

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#151

Post by maxerickson »

stri8ed wrote: post #122
phakding wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the link here. Yes there are 22 million laid off. But given a choice between being alive and being jobless, I think people would choose being jobless. The people protesting are not the same people lining up at food banks. I have seen wapo video of Michigan protest. People there were angry because they want to get their hair done or buy paint and fertilizer. They want others to go to work to they can stay…

> But given a choice between being alive and being jobless To be fair that is not the actual choice on offer. Its more like being jobless, vs accepting a certain (in some cases low) probability of dying.

It's not just a personal calculation though. People that are infected spread the disease and consume medical resources. Those things both impact the rest of society.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#152

Post by SerLava »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #133
SerLava wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>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 Yes you absolutely can. The workers interacting with the quarantined subset of the population could use PPE to avoid transmitting it to them. Packaging on groceries, as well as the grocery bag, can easily be disinfected before being tran…

1. We can't even get PPE. We won't have PPE for a long time. Not even doctors have enough.

2. We're not going to train minimum wage workers and quarantined vulnerable individuals to follow sanitary procedures to any adequate degree.

3. We don't even have enough trained medical workers to treat dying people, so no they aren't going to make the deliveries. This problem will only get worse if you go all "herd immunity" because a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable"

The only option the US has is quarantine, because it is a failed state.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#153

Post by elicash »

Press2forEN wrote: post #98

For those of you cheering this move, imagine it applied to the causes you care about and decide if you still think its a good idea.

Never understood this argument. Let's take a cause I disagree with. I'm pro-equality, but still think Christian Mingle shouldn't be forced to match up same-sex couples. Because I disagree with their values, of course, I'd never use their website. OF COURSE conservative Christians should be allowed to have a website that aligns with their values. Not only don't I think this website should be outlawed -- I also don't think it's a "bad idea" that shouldn't exist. I simply disagree with the values, so I don't belong to it.

Moving back to the current situation...

I only want to belong to a social network that values science and public health. Why shouldn't I be allowed to be a user of a website that has those same values? You're going to tell me that the kind of website that I want to belong to should be outlawed and not allowed to exist? Or, let's not even go that far... that it's BAD that it exists?

Keep in mind, you can have any view you want. This is whether or not Facebook wants to use their social network to help spread events that would endanger the general public. A "keep things closed" event would be treated the same way.

(I agree FB is too big and should be cut into multiple pieces. And they shouldn't have been allowed to buy Instagram. But for very different reasons. Mostly I worry about their impact, as well as Google's, on publisher ad revenue.)

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#154

Post by SerLava »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #143
SerLava wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

>Wait, are you talking about the people who want to send everyone back to work now This is an argument made in a bad faith. You can't send "everyone to work now", if you are not running a gulag. People who are financially secure can stay at home till 2021, nobody can force them to go to work, this is obvious. It's a question of being able to make a personal decision between staying at home or going to work.

>People who are financially secure can stay at home till 2021, nobody can force them to go to work, this is obvious.

>It's a question of being able to make a personal decision between staying at home or going to work.

Double speak. You mean rich people can decide to quarantine until 2021, and poor people can decide between work followed by exposure and possible death, or homelessness followed by exposure and possible death.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#155

Post by duchenne »

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously?

In the movie version of "I Robot", since the three laws of robotics prioritize saving life over following humans' wishes, the AI ends up locking down every humans in their own homes for their own safety. Could facebook sensor this movie since it pictures the lockdown as an evil action?

For instance, in France, more than half of private sector employees have already been furloughed. This is unprecedented. So, who could predict what would be the consequences, including in terms of life? The food production in Southern Europe is down. Can we know for sure that their will be no starvation?

Several countries have not decided to do a stay-at-home-lockdown including Sweden, most of Germany, Japan, South Korea, 95% of China. Praising the strategy of these countries should be authorized. Several eastern and northern Europeans countries are opening up as well, even though the disease is still there.

People should be able to take a calculated risk. When people drive to their job, they consider the risk of having an accident, and the benefits of being able to reach their work place, then they take a decision.

The most accurate data about the fatality rate of covid-19 may come from the Diamond Princess cruise boat where everyone has been tested. The 60-to-80 year old infected passengers had a fatality rate of ~2%. There was no fatality among the infected much younger crew.

Now, the government should inform people with data, and let them take a decision. For now, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people in France, Italy, and Spain want the lockdown, so they should be able to get it. But people who want the opposite should be able to express their voice as well. Otherwise, the democracy cannot work.

(Sorry for the bad English, it is not my native language.)

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#156

Post by megavolcano »

phakding wrote: post #134
pacala wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The disease does not affect age groups equally. From what I've seen, most victims are in the 60+ age groups. From NYC fatality report [0]: 0-9: 1 0% 10-19: 6 0.1% 20-29: 56 0.4% 30-39: 227 1.6% 40-49: 535 3.7% 50-59: 1410 9.8% 60-69: 2863 20.0% 70-79: 3811 26.6% 80-89: 1753 25.4% 90+: 12.2% Think of people having a "vitality score" that decreases with age, and of disease as a stressor that kills people with the "vita…

So you are okay with 16 out of every 1000, 30-39 year old person with a family and young kids who are otherwise healthy, die just so you could go out to eat in your favorite restaurant? You are willing to sacrifice them for your benefit. How altruistic of you!

Considering that the more data we get with regards to fatality rate, it's looking more and more along the lines of the seasonal flu (which has a vaccine, generally). The drastic measures taken to protect a tiny minority of people are looking to be more and more pointless. We would not tolerate shutting down the world economy to protect people from the seasonal flu, and we should not tolerate it for this.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#157

Post by SerLava »

thelean12 wrote: post #141
SerLava wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For how long? You can't keep society inside for a long period of time. It just won't work. Couple weeks? Sure. 3 months? Barely, it seems. 1 year? No. It just won't work. (I don't think we'll get to that point, but I think that the point stands: quarantine is a short term fix.)

Without doing a real bailout of normal people, no we can't go more than a few months.

If we're going to demand grocery store workers get buried in the ground for the sake of keeping things running, we can afford to radically shift the distribution of wealth toward the people we're literally condeming.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#158

Post by p1necone »

TomMckenny wrote: post #147
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…

>that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery Unless the anti-quarantine events are organized by a hostile power. And this seems likely since they are insanely harmfully, arose suddenly and with widespread and great organization and have a lot of precedent. [1][2][3] And especially since it's already been explicitly shown for at least some of the domains connected to the protests.[4] [1] https://…

Given this the number of people even on hacker news who are throwing very dubious arguments around and completely ignoring the fact that these protestors are obviously either acting in bad faith or very ignorant is a bit concerning too.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#159

Post by lone_haxx0r »

elicash wrote: post #153
Press2forEN wrote: post #98

For those of you cheering this move, imagine it applied to the causes you care about and decide if you still think its a good idea.

Never understood this argument. Let's take a cause I disagree with. I'm pro-equality, but still think Christian Mingle shouldn't be forced to match up same-sex couples. Because I disagree with their values, of course, I'd never use their website. OF COURSE conservative Christians should be allowed to have a website that aligns with their values. Not only don't I think this website should be outlawed -- I also don't t…

> I only want to belong to a social network that values science and public health. Why shouldn't I be allowed to be a user of a website that has those same values?

I think it's a problem of expectations.

Some expect Facebook to just be a social network. Others, like you, expect it to be a safe space where unapproved opinions aren't allowed. Neither kind is bad per se, but I don't think most people expected Facebook to be of the latter kind.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#160

Post by gruez »

p1necone wrote: post #158
TomMckenny wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery Unless the anti-quarantine events are organized by a hostile power. And this seems likely since they are insanely harmfully, arose suddenly and with widespread and great organization and have a lot of precedent. [1][2][3] And especially since it's already been explicitly shown for at least some of the domains connected to the protests.[4] [1] https://…

Given this the number of people even on hacker news who are throwing very dubious arguments around and completely ignoring the fact that these protestors are obviously either acting in bad faith or very ignorant is a bit concerning too.

examples?
Post reply on HN