Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by phakding » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:25 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #171

phakding wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May be for healthy, but not for the people with certain underlying conditions like diabetes, high BP, obesity etc. Also even if you are not vulnerable to the disease, you could be spreading this to the others who are even without showing symptoms. Look at Sweden. They decided to let the people at risk stay home while others go out and about their business. Didn't work out too well for them.

Sweden has about the same per-capita death rate as the US and Switzerland, and lower than the UK, Spain, and Belgium. (See https://91-divoc.com/pages/covid-visualization/ ). It's certainly possible that they'd be doing better with more restrictions, but if their strategy is as disastrous as many people seem to think then they'd be at the top of the charts, and they're not.

That sort of proves my point. UK didn't even want to restrict anything. Netherlands, Italy and Spain acted too late. Sweden decides to selectively restrict. In US people are willing to sacrifice human life for economic activity and no wonder all these countries are worse off as far as fatality rate goes compared some other countries like Germany or India.

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

#192

Post by Barrin92 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

duchenne wrote: post #155

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 versio…

>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?

Just to point out that quote is a textbook example of historical revisionism. Benjamin Franklin wrote this to the Penn family who governed the state of the same name on behalf of the general assembly.

The Penn family wanted to make a one time payment to be excluded from any future tax obligations, and Franklin's quote here is very literal, that is to say, making a one time payment to absolve oneself from duty to the state (in this case taxes were to be used to finance the Indian and French war efforts), is immoral.

So in contrast to what you're trying to imply, Franklin made the case that long term social obligations and the ability of the assembly to govern were more important than dodging one's obligation.

Ironically enough I think this may even be transferable to the covid-19 situation. A little temporary economic boost is probably not as important as following rules to safeguard public health.

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

#193

Post by holler » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

edgefield0 wrote: post #11

devmunchies wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any decision can kill people, whether its motor traffic laws, junk food laws, or smoking laws, or quarantine laws. its all open for debate and should not be deplatformed for mere protest. There is a point where quarantine does more damage than good, especially when thinking big picture and government control.

[flagged]

It's likely that the mortality rate is around 0.1-0.2% which is the same as seasonal influenza.

https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-sugg...

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

#194

Post by megavolcano » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

pacala wrote: post #177

megavolcano wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would love to bound the death rate, both lower and upper, ideally by age group. Right now I'm torn between 'it's a nasty flu, soldier up' vs. 'it's a supernasty disease that's going to severely upend life once it becomes endemic'. With the caveat that, given how easy it spreads, we might not be able to realistically do anything to prevent it becoming endemic. Would you please be able to expand on the 'seasonal flu'…

The fatality rate of the seasonal flu is around 0.1%. We originally thought that COVID-19 had a fatality rate fo 2-3%, but now that antibody testing is more and more widespread we are finding more and more cases of people testing positive for antibodies - indicating they had and recovered from the virus - without ever having any symptoms.

A study from Santa Clara just recently found that there are probably 50 to 85 times MORE infections than originally thought, just that the vast majority of them were asymptomatic.

Should we be focusing our energy on protecting our elderly and immunocompromised? Yes, absolutely.

Should we be mandating that people stay home, putting millions of perfectly healthy people out of work? It's absolutely insane to me that this was even considered, let alone implemented.

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

#195

Post by phakding » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

megavolcano wrote: post #179

phakding wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you know the fatality rate of flu? That stat is not even reported. Even CDC only has an estimation of flu deaths. Besides, many strains of flu has a vaccines available. Nothing of that sort exists for corona. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.ht...

You answered your own question. When comparing estimated flu deaths to the overinflatted corona reported deaths. Do I really need to be so pedantic? Vaccines existing for the flu is the point, COVID is way less deadly considering we don't_ have a vaccine.

I am sorry, but you read like fox news propoganda. "overinflatted corona reported deaths". Really? any proof to that? Pedantic, you need to be factual and truthful.

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

#196

Post by alyx » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:35 AM UTC

czardoz wrote: post #186

duchenne wrote: post #155

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 versio…

You're talking about this as if a "calculated risk" is limited to that individual, but it's not. Someone's "calculated risk" is literally death knell for others. In this case, the health of the society as a whole is at stake. Therefore, people need to collectively follow rules, and understand that minor inconveniences such as not being able to get a haircut will only affect them for a few weeks or months.

I don’t think you read his post.

You are endangering others‘ lives each time you drive. And yet you’re not inline at the DMV surrendering your license, why?

Seasonal sickness also isn’t new. My coworker gave me the flu and I gave it to my grandmother. Who’s at fault there?

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

#197

Post by edgefield0 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

holler wrote: post #193

edgefield0 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's likely that the mortality rate is around 0.1-0.2% which is the same as seasonal influenza. https://reason.com/2020/04/20/l-a-county-antibody-tests-sugg...

Except when every ICU bed is taken and there are no ventilators available, the mortality rate is probably in the 3-5% rate.

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

#198

Post by jerf » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

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://…

I can tell you "from the field" that there are plenty of real people who really do feel the lockdowns are being overdone and doing more harm than good, yes, even accounting for the possibility of an increased infection rate. The damage being done by the lockdown is a big number, and quite concrete; the damage that would have been done if we didn't lock down is a widely variable number under any honest analysis and the minimum of that range quite likely extends below the concrete costs of the lockdown, even as the maximum dwarfs it. It's not a situation amenable to quite as easy a choice as many here seem to be implying. And those costs are bourne unevenly, which doesn't make the debate any easier. For those of who, like me, are nearly unaffected (so far), it's pretty easy to argue that the costs of the lockdown don't really matter.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, of course. It would be far from the first time that a true grassroots movement was taken over by some non-grassroots group for their own purposes.

I will point out that one of the reasons this may seem to be exploding suddenly though is that everybody is being exposed to the same conditions at the same time. Under those circumstances it should actually be expected that large social changes occur in relative lockstep at a pace that wouldn't have been possible during "normal" times. Mere speed of motion is not really a reason to be suspicious that the entire thing is being manufactured.

And note I am specifically speaking about that argument and no other. There is plenty of evidence that the sites in question are too organized to be a simultaneous grass-roots effort springing up in multiple states at once at this speed with this similarity. That is also so unsurprising as to be something you should expect in advance. I'm just suggesting that it's not a good idea to therefore conclude there isn't a significant group of people who really do feel this way; marginalizing that group of real people will if any tend to empower these fake organizations by making them the only place those people feel like they can get any respect.

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

#199

Post by alyx » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:38 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #136

gdubs wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m too tired at the moment to figure out where I stand on this [issue of free speech / assembly] but I have a general question: I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech, such as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. I guess the distinction is how directly the speech leads to harm. Would that apply in this situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is nece…

You're free to yell fire in a theater if you believe there is a fire. By analogy, if you thought Covid-19 danger's were overblown, you are free to say so.

If you yell “bomb” on a plane, your milage may vary.

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

#200

Post by mcculley » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

bargl wrote: post #138

mcculley wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no surprise that a culture that didn't plan ahead or invest in public health infrastructure has haphazard and poorly defined processes.

Agreed. I'd like to point out that some people equate "invest in public health infrastructure" with free healthcare. The two aren't the same. To deal with a pandemic you need a pandemic response plan for the spike to the system. This can be done in even in the US under our current system. It'd just magnify the pros/cons of our any system in place. I'm for state run healthcare, but the argument about pandemic readines…

I agree that they are two separate concepts. But if a community ensures that homeless people are vaccinated and not a risk to those privately insured and also wants all children vaccinated, no matter who their parents are, that is a form of healthcare. Public health requires an investment in healthcare.

Healthcare is never free. Some cultures invest in it. Some don't.