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

531–540 of 595 posts

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

#531

Post by lazyasciiart »

FpUser wrote: post #331
lazyasciiart wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should the government be obligated to offer you support for that choice? That would probably mean at minimum money to replace your work income, something like a new category of 'being high risk' a qualification for unemployment. Or should your choice be limited to self isolate and starve, or keep working?

What support? Said person will just have higher chances to die. Their choice. They're not inflicting death upon the others as accordingly to proposal there are no restrictions on younger carriers without symptoms.

Support to allow them to stay home. It's not really a "choice" to stay home if that means they will starve or be evicted.

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

#532

Post by markbnj »

jacobush wrote: post #464
triyambakam wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are increasing reports that ventilators are doing more harm than good, that in fact the way this virus starves the body of oxygen isn't pneumonia, but rather in the blood. It's like a reverse survivorship bias - most patients vented die.

Sounds crazy - even if it was something in the blood, if you are oxygen starved, how can it be worse to flush your lungs with pure oxygen than not?

>> Sounds crazy - even if it was something in the blood, if you are oxygen starved, how can it be worse to flush your lungs with pure oxygen than not?

Absolutely not an expert and being married to a critical care nurse doesn't make me one. From what she has told me and what I have read ventilators are not about oxygen, they are about the mechanical work to move the diaphragm in and out, something the body gets too tired to do at some point after a long battle with respiratory illness. In fact the arguments against ventilators that I have read is specifically that they put pressure on the lungs without actually increasing the absorption of oxygen. But this is one of those things the actual experts are trying to figure out right now.

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

#533

Post by camgunz »

thu2111 wrote: post #528
camgunz wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just strawman after strawman. No one's saying we shouldn't do essential work like maintaining water treatment plants. No one's saying the economy is just spring breakers. In fact, they're demanding financial support from Congress to help people while the economy is shut down. Please do more research and be more responsible. The stakes are very high.

You've missed my point. There's no working definition of "essential". The water plant depends on regular deliveries of components. The components come from factories which in turn need more components, and those components come from factories that depend for business on orders from some "non essential" industry. So they shut down to preserve cash, and that ripples through the supply chain until suddenly water pressur…

> There's no working definition of "essential".

There is, it's whatever your government says it is. They're consulting with experts and people on the ground to make and update those determinations.

> Water plant, etc.

Yeah there are tons of cases like this. All to be handled by your government in consultation with experts and people on the ground. When the water treatment plant needs X, they'll figure out how to get it (after figuring out if it's worth the risk).

> You say it's a strawman argument, but that would mean I was putting words in people's mouths.

No a strawman is mischaracterizing someone's position to make it radical, and thus easy to discredit. Here's what you've said about others:

> I don't understand people who hear "the economy" and appear to think of going on holidays?

> it looks like a lot of people couldn't care less about the lives of others

This is mischaracterizing someone's position to make it callous and naive, and then calling it callous and naive. No one's saying these things. You also did it again when you said "they seem to perceive the economy as this optional nice-to-have thing which governments can neatly and instant partition into "needed" and 'frippery which shouldn't matter if anyone is sick'." No one is trivializing the economic impact, in fact many (including me) are deeply worried about it. But coronavirus is worse, and we have other tools to deal with the economic fallout. The only thing we can do to fight coronavirus is to shelter until we have testing.

> Finally, please don't engage in childish condescension like your last statement.

I wasn't condescending, I was admonishing. When I said "please do more research" I meant "research what your government is doing and the dangers of breaking shelter too early." By "be more responsible" I meant don't engage in strawman after strawman to try and persuade people that breaking shelter is a good idea, because you haven't done adequate research. By "the stakes are very high" I meant lots of people might die and it doesn't seem like you know, because you haven't referenced it. Your posts have been one-sided in favor of breaking shelter.

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

#534

Post by some-are-better »

bargl wrote: post #87
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…

We tend to want to lump people into camps so we don't have to go through and see all the various sub-categories and determine if they are OK or not. Some states are restricting fishing and hunting... That's not a team sport and if I use a lure (edit: as in I don't even have to go to the store for bait) I'm not going to affect anyone else. Some protesters want to get haircuts.... GET OVER IT. I feel like both sides ha…

>Some protesters want to get haircuts.... GET OVER IT.

Maybe they just want to get the same haircut that the mayor of Chicago got the other week, long after the state lockdown...

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

#535

Post by Pils »

toast0 wrote: post #234
Pils wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a country is unwilling to make reasonable accommodations for working people to vote, defending in-person protests during a global pandemic as necessary for said country's democracy is beyond parody.

I've voted in three states. In California, permanent absentee registration is simple (now, it wasn't 30 years ago), and the state mandates time off to vote. In Washington state, all voting is vote by mail. I don't remember what voting in Wisconsin was like (at the time, I did same day registration, but I think they went back and forth). In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of…

> In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of examples of states where voting is reasonable.

7 people got infected in Wisconsin due to voting: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/milwaukee/2020/04/.... I am glad your experiences in CA/WA were positive, but I would suggest looking into the history of "voting is a state issue."

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

#536

Post by blaser-waffle »

triyambakam wrote: post #345
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…

There are increasing reports that ventilators are doing more harm than good, that in fact the way this virus starves the body of oxygen isn't pneumonia, but rather in the blood. It's like a reverse survivorship bias - most patients vented die.

Or it could just be regular survivor bias, in that anyone who is sick enough to need a ventilator is probably doomed, regardless.

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

#537

Post by ryandrake »

kd5bjo wrote: post #409
pjc50 wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many fractional-people are willing to kill or injure for that payment, which should (but isn't, because this is America) be bailed out by the government responsible for the quarantine? This is the statistical morality question that we're very bad at dealing with. Here, move this trolley switch lever. There's a 1/100 chance that doing so kills somebody. No, you can't tell whether it will, or even whether it did af…

> which should (but isn't, because this is America) be bailed out by the government responsible for the quarantine This makes me wonder if there might be some kind of eminent domain case to be made: If the government orders a business closed due to no fault of the owner/management, is that sufficiently similar to seizing the property that they owe some kind of remuneration for the action?

What happens in the event of other disasters, like hurricanes where the government can step in to close things? When there is an evacuation, is the government suddenly on the hook to remunerate? Running a business comes with risks, and one of those risks is having to shut down for some amount of time, for any reason. Should businesses that are not robust to this be bailed out?

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

#538

Post by CryptoPunk »

SerLava wrote: post #152
CryptoPunk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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"…

If the US really doesn't have enough PPE for safe deliveries, then the health authorities can improvise, and have delivery workers leave packages at the door.

I don't see why training delivery workers to follow sanitary procedures would be infeasible either.

Whatever costs/challenges in ensuring no disease transmission from the majority to the quarantined minority pales in comparison to the challenges posed by completely collapsing the economy by requiring everyone to be quarantined.

>>a shitload of people will be in the hospital being triaged because they were classified as "non-vulnerable"

The chances of a person infected with the coronavirus ending up in critical condition or dead from COVID19 are vastly smaller if they're under 45.

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

#539

Post by ModernMech »

thu2111 wrote: post #529
ModernMech wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These data show that retail, travel, and restaurants were all taking huge hits before lockdowns went in to wide effect: https://www.ft.com/content/d184fa0a-6904-11ea-800d-da70cff6e... Bay area issued the first national stay at home order on March 13. By then demand had already dropped precipitously. If your restaurant is seeing 60% fewer bookings, are you going to keep as many wait staff? Are you going to order as mu…

Given how many people have mild symptoms and how age-dependent it is, it's entirely plausible that 500 infections would yield only a handful of employees to sick to work. And yet Sweden still disproves your point. Businesses have stayed open, including restaurants and other such businesses, and yet Swedish companies are not evaporating due to their workforces being too sick to work. That's not even close to happening…

Again, Sweden is not the US, they have not been hit nearly as hard. More people will die today in the US than have died total in all of Sweden. Sweden is not immune from the effects of Covid. They have imposed measures to limit the size of gatherings, have closed secondary schools and colleges, and have imposed restrictions on restaurants. Despite their looser restrictions they are still expecting to see the economy contract and have experienced record unemployment:

``` A record 36,800 people were handed their notice in March, more than 10 times the number from the same month last year.

The government has offered loans and guarantees and expects to increase expenditure by around 84 billion Swedish crowns ($8.35 billion) this year.

At the same time, the central bank has poured money into the financial system, offering 500 billion Swedish crowns in loans to companies via banks and boosting its purchases of securities by 300 billion crowns.

Banking group Swedbank said recently it expected the economy to contract 4% this year. ``` https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden...

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

#540

Post by CryptoPunk »

wyager wrote: post #253
CryptoPunk wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only commercial speech. Private non-commercial speech has been pretty broadly protected by the First Amendment.

Commercial speech (I.e. Facebook’s censorship of material on its advertising platform) is obviously what’s in question here.

Facebook's censorship has nothing to do with First Amendment rights, as it's a private platform.
Post reply on HN