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

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

#371

Post by kelnos » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:28 AM UTC

alyx wrote: post #196

czardoz wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

You are endangering other drivers' lives with their consent; any time they get behind the wheel, they acknowledge the risk to themselves from other drivers as well as themselves. You're also required to carry insurance to help cover the cost of screwing up and hurting or killing other people.

Please tell me how other people are consenting to your risking of their lives because you want to go get a haircut. Also please let me know which insurance company will pay out in the case that you directly and recklessly infect someone and they die.

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

Not sure what this has do to with anything. I'm trying to assume a charitable interpretation of what you're asking, but this just sounds like trolling.

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

#372

Post by camgunz » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:29 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #354

hartator wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s actually not true. We are talking 0.2-0.3% lethality which is still a lot but it will bellow 250k deaths even if we are back to full normal right now. Current estimations are 60-70k deaths from it but the doubling of suicides resulting of lockdowns this year to 100k make us more likely to die from suicide than covid-19.

Do you have citations to back up those numbers? I've been looking for things to read that try to quantify the potential harm of shelter-in-place orders, but haven't found much that go anywhere beyond wild guesses.

Yeah! Well, not the suicides. The stuff I found was like "9 suicides in Tennessee" (which is tragic but not indicative) and a lot of coverage of Trump's lies about it. But COVID-19 I used:

https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html

and

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...

Feel free to check my math, it's late and I did some pretty sketchy rounding.

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

#373

Post by throwaway_pdp09 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:34 AM UTC

antpls wrote: post #339

markbnj wrote: post #305

I usually stay out of the political/topical threads on HN but this is personal to me. From my point of view few if any of us commenting here are knowledgeable enough to connect all the disparate data points we keep snatching at and synthesize them into conclusions that are likely to be correct. The people who can do that are working on it, and generally too busy at the moment to post on forums or give interviews. The…

> Her first patient was 51. I bet that's younger than most of you are thinking when you think "vulnerable." It looks like he's going to make it and drop into that large "didn't die" bucket I see referred to here over and over, but to get there he spent _five weeks_ in an ICU bed on a ventilator. My wife has treated lots of elderly people. She's also treated people in their 30's and 40's. People in those age groups ha…

> Anecdotal cases don't tell anything

It just did. Something rather important.

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

#374

Post by baddox » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:36 AM UTC

otterley wrote: post #323

mehrdadn wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many states are suspending unlawful detainer and eviction actions until the crisis is over and people can get back to work So how does that work? Instead of right now, they'll get evicted and become homeless as soon as things open up, because they've been piling up rent with no income in the meantime? Would you find that comforting?

Why do you assume that would be the outcome? That is the cruelest, most pessimistic prediction that one could make. Come on, have a little faith in common sense and decency.

Why make these temporary suspensions at all then?

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

#375

Post by baddox » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:37 AM UTC

otterley wrote: post #323

mehrdadn wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many states are suspending unlawful detainer and eviction actions until the crisis is over and people can get back to work So how does that work? Instead of right now, they'll get evicted and become homeless as soon as things open up, because they've been piling up rent with no income in the meantime? Would you find that comforting?

Why do you assume that would be the outcome? That is the cruelest, most pessimistic prediction that one could make. Come on, have a little faith in common sense and decency.

Why make these temporary suspensions at all then? Surely the people who need the government to prohibit them from evicting people during a pandemic who are unable to pay rent because of that pandemic, don’t inspire the most faith.

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

#376

Post by meheleventyone » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:39 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #315

otterley wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately many states are suspending unlawful detainer and eviction actions until the crisis is over and people can get back to work. They are similarly restricting foreclosure actions for impacted landlords who would otherwise use the rental income to pay their mortgages. This is also the humane thing to do because this crisis is no fault of the renters.

> many states are suspending unlawful detainer and eviction actions until the crisis is over and people can get back to work So how does that work? Instead of right now, they'll get evicted and become homeless as soon as things open up, because they've been piling up rent with no income in the meantime? Would you find that comforting?

If everything just starts up with rent due and evictions happening to a significant population you just have a second wave of recession and a collapse of the rental market. I’d assume most people, particularly landlords and local government would want to avoid that.

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

#377

Post by camgunz » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:41 AM UTC

tdfx wrote: post #350

camgunz wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, let me rephrase. COVID is the deadliest thing most people will ever have a chance of coming into contact with, you'll spread it to others before you even know you have it, thus it's almost certain you won't be the only one "taking the risk". It's not like driving, flying, takeaway, or any other inane, minimizing comparison. It is a highly infectious, stealthy, lethal pathogen. If we let everyone get it, at even…

> We'll figure the rest out later. When? As far as I know, no one has provided any quantifiable goal post for when it’s safe to stop lockdown.

When we have a plan that doesn't involve the likely death of thousands of people.

I get it's frustrating to not have a timeline and that the stakes are high. But as shitty as it's gonna sound, life's not fair.

But in terms of metric, people are actually talking about what stats to look at, mainly the reproduction rate (Cuomo refers to it as infection rate in his watch the dial slide) vs. hospital capacity. Angela Merkel went on at some length about it. But it'll take time, and to avoid new waves, we need testing, and I haven't heard anything about US plans for that, which honestly scares me.

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

#378

Post by anonymouswacker » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

Facebook will censor itself out of relevance as its usefulness for connection and building relationships is replaced by insistence on creating a safe space for pro-establishment propaganda.

It was already selectively flagging certain news articles as true or not, countering certain misinformation while conveniently missing others. It's a questionable practice to become the gatekeepers of fact when the fourth estate itself is held to no such legal standard.

The centralized web needs to stop this subtle censorship. We can't rely on the opinions of a few to censor the many in any fair or equitable way, look at Twitter/Reddit/YouTube...

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

#379

Post by czzr » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

alyx wrote: post #299

coliveira wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False equivalence. Car accidents are not transmitting at viral rates. Cars are not infecting other cars even when they are working perfectly well. Seasonal flu is not killing 2% of those infected, and even then we take necessary measures to avoid the common flu.

When you say "viral rates" please cite your model. Here is the latest out of California, https://pressroom.usc.edu/preliminary-results-of-usc-la-coun... Making the effective death rate like 0.1% - 0.3%, if confirmed.

This paper has been widely criticised as likely being completely wrong, as it incorrectly accounts for false positives.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/19/fatal-flaw...

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

#380

Post by roenxi » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

meheleventyone wrote: post #361

antpls wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Her first patient was 51. I bet that's younger than most of you are thinking when you think "vulnerable." It looks like he's going to make it and drop into that large "didn't die" bucket I see referred to here over and over, but to get there he spent _five weeks_ in an ICU bed on a ventilator. My wife has treated lots of elderly people. She's also treated people in their 30's and 40's. People in those age groups ha…

I think the point there is that the person clogged up an ICU bed for five weeks and will likely recover. Focussing on who will most likely die does not answer the who will overwhelm hospitals question. Increasing pressure in that sense will increase death rate even further amongst vulnerable (to dying from lack of ICU beds) populations.

Now I don't know if what is going on really makes sense or not, and I'm pretty happy to wait 6 months before I decide myself who should and shouldn't have done what - apart from the obvious stuff like the US CDC banning private companies from selling test kits has to be the stupidest crisis response I've seen in my lifetime. The reaction is going to look stupid in hindsight whatever happens, people were forced to make urgent decisions with lousy data.

All that said 'the hospitals are being overwhelmed' isn't a good reason to shut down most of the economy. If people are going to park up in their houses for months anyway there isn't much difference whether they are sick or not. I know a bunch of work-hungry lunatics who would much rather catch the disease, risk whatever may happen and get back to work and the data I've seen says it is debatable on whether that is the wrong approach for someone in their 30s or 40s. And on the flip side I don't think there has ever been an experiment like shutting everything down to see what happens. We have no idea if we are playing with fire or or a fluffy pillow for some of these decisions around shutting down industries. There is a correlation with bad economies and war breaking out. Does that happen when the economic wounds are self inflected in a crisis? We really don't know. Probably not. But things are happening very quickly and a lot of serious turbulence is hitting the system.

It is a fair observation and somewhat compelling but there needs to be a better reason than 'ICU nurses are overwhelmed with work' to strip people of their right to make their own mistakes. It is good evidence but it is not the end of the conversation.