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

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

#481

Post by tomohawk » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 12:57 PM UTC

101404 wrote: post #446

pjc50 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I've been wondering for a while is how long Facebook et al would let conspiracy stuff run wild once it came close to damaging their own interests. It's one thing to look at a forest fire from a distance and say "it's people's right to play with matches", quite another thing when it reaches your own office. Neither Facebook staff nor management are immune to the consequences of a pandemic. There is a legitim…

Always remember that "the NSA is spying on everybody" was "conspiracy stuff" too. Right until it wasn't. And regarding Corona: Sweden never introduced a quarantine, and they seem to be in good shape compared to others. Not saying I agree with that policy, because I don't. But the topic isn't as "black and white" as it appears. Here in Germany, as of today, many of the already few restrictions where lifted as well.

Here's the stats today for some countries including Sweden

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/new-covid-deaths-per-mill...

They seem to be doing better than average.

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

#482

Post by Faark » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:00 PM UTC

lixtra wrote: post #457

ubercow13 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the UK/US response was supposedly based on this study [0], which predicted maybe 250,000 deaths if there was no lockdown. That's something like 140 years worth of traffic deaths for the UK, in one go. So yes, we take calculated risks all the time, but the comparison to driving isn't useful IMO. [0] https://www.ft.com/content/16764a22-69ca-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcc...

If it was just about throwing around numbers, you can compare it to 480,000 tobacco deaths per year [0] in the US. Of course it’s about taking calculated risks everywhere. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...

Smoking isn't a fitting example. You can do whatever you want to yourself in your own home, but it is significantly restricted in public were it effects other people. It's obviously about calculated risk, but that is weighted very different once others are involved.

An interesting other aspect is the change to the status quo. To stick to the better example: Humans accepted that some traffic deaths will happen. But lets imagine that for unknown reason all around the country, car tyres start to just suddenly burst, steering cars into incoming traffic. I'd not be surprised if driving would be restricted until we got to the bottom of such a phenomenon. Even if the average chance of dying on a given day for the average citizen didn't increase manyfold.

Now that I've written that... kind of reminds me of a certain Boeing plane.

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

#483

Post by AdrianB1 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:05 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #401

sneak wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's been a month. We can absolutely make it through a few months if we have to, while they do their work. You and I can. Many of my friends have missed a rent or car payment, and may soon miss another. Most people cannot work from home.

And that's why government action to shut down businesses, should absolutely be coupled with action to protect workers salaries. In the UK, government is paying 80% of furloughed workers pay up to a certain amount, and there is relief on property taxes etc for businesses. In my opinion the two (shutdown and relief) go hand in hand.

Correction: "here in UK the taxpayer is covering 80% of furloughed workers pay". Governments have no money, they take it from taxpayers and redistribute. Moving money from a pocket to another does not fix the problem of decreasing resources if people don't work.

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

#484

Post by irq11 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

mellosouls wrote: post #467

irq11 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants to “tank the economy”, but lots of panicky people are on HN and reddit, every day, calling for extensions of these lockdowns “because people are dying!” , even though the original pretense was quite different (“flattening the curve” doesn’t change the area under the curve). The premise of the thing is shifting, and censorship of contrary opinions is growing (as you can see from reflexive downvoting of co…

Lots of panicky people are on HN and reddit, every day, calling for extensions of these lockdowns “because people are dying!”, even though the original pretense was quite different (“flattening the curve” doesn’t change the area under the curve). How was it different? One of the main points of flattening the curve was to minimise the risk of overwhelming (particularly) health services by ensuring that pressure was sp…

”One of the main points of flattening the curve was to minimise the risk of overwhelming (particularly) health services by ensuring that pressure was spread out over time. Overwhelmed health services = people dying”

You are illustrating the problem perfectly: the goal of this is not (and was never) to prevent ”people dying”. It was only to prevent “collapse of the healthcare system”. To the extent that we have accomplished this goal, it is a moral imperative to move on to less drastic interventions, even if continuing might save additional lives.

Any scenario where you think that shutting down for longer “saves more lives” creates a moral hazard, and shifts the goalposts from the original intent of this drastic approach.

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

#485

Post by lbeltrame » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:12 PM UTC

cpwright wrote: post #114

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…

"Would that apply in this situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is necessary for saving lives? Or is the thinking that this is too far removed — like telling people they can’t protest seat-belts." Medical experts and scientists can provide data that helps inform people. Just because medical experts say something will "save lives" does not mean we should blindly follow that as policy. Th…

> Medical experts and scientists can provide data that helps inform people.

I add: when the data is clear cut. At worst, when data is noisy or little is known, you get (at least what I've seen in Italy) declarations from experts in the news that can be easily contradictory. Worse when some of the experts, because they're human, are a little more attached to their ideas.

In a way, this pandemic brought the scientific debate to light in public, in the sense that ideas are often challenged and adjusted based on discussion, and even harsh contrast. But this is a problem when communicating outside, because lay people usually regard experts as holders of truth, or at least part of it.

See the current debate on serological tests' sensitivity and specificity and the consequences on the results. I can likely understand the issues and the criticisms, but I can't expect lay people (not because any fault of them, of course) to understand them.

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

#486

Post by AdrianB1 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

staticassertion wrote: post #167

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…

> 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? Most people sound more like the latter than the former. If people were saying "We have a need for haircuts etc, this is serious", they'd get a lot more consideration than some appea…

> Most people sensibly realize that a lock-down in the face of a pandemic is not a regression in our fundamental rights as US citizens, but just a temporary measure to save lives.

This way many of the rights in the Constitution and Amendments were slowly eroded (reduced), permanently. Technically, it is a slippery slope even if it is driven by good intentions. One day there will be nothing left, because this is how lives were saved, think of the children, etc. The only thing that I can think of in this context is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

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

#487

Post by lbeltrame » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

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.)

> 1 year? No. It just won't work.

Some experts in Italy have called for quarantines up to 24 months until there is a vaccine. The net effect this has done is just to scare the population, at this point.

I hope we don't have to go that route.

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

#488

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #411

markbnj wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> My father is currently in a hospital for an unrelated reason and it's almost empty -> they are 'prepared for war' and there isn't a single COVID patient in the entire area, let alone hospital. They are all empty. Which is just as anecdotal. The virus doesn't spread everywhere at once, and there are a lot of places in the country/world that aren't NYC/North Jersey yet. If they have similar population density and do…

Yet? Recall that the outbreak started in central Europe weeks before the USA locked down. Even in the harder hit countries, there are quiet hospitals almost everywhere. Look at Switzerland - it shares a huge land border with northern Italy and has large numbers of people who move across the borders, it volunteered to take Italian patients in. Swiss hospitals are receiving financial bailouts because they're so quiet,…

> There's no evidence lawmakers have any better insight into what's going on than anyone else, and quite a bit of evidence they may have worse insight.

Yes, I'm sure dark money funded protestors who blocked ambulances from going to hospitals have better insight than anyone else. What a load of nonsense.

Facebook is a private platform. It can moderate how it pleases.

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

#489

Post by Faark » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #75

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…

the collection of arguments being made by the protesters (as reported) mostly seem farcical and incoherent, but we should very much support their right to protest and challenge the authoritarian-prone position that we must be locked down indefinitely to beat this pandemic. administrative directives need to convince a (super-)majority of the populace with evidence to gain trust and compliance. antagonistic pressure ne…

An interesting aspect: Protesting a law should be possible without disobeying it. But the usual mass gatherings are kind of a problem in this specific situation.

Thus how to protest responsibly?

Holding a "Its just a Flu" poster while wearing a face mask might not be that ridiculous after all.

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

#490

Post by camgunz » Tue, Apr 21, 2020, 1:21 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #406

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…

Can I check what you think gloves will achieve?

Yeah! A major way people spread things is through their hands, so wearing gloves and taking them off before you get home helps you not bring it inside. You can then remove your mask and wash your hands.