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

A case for ending lockdown

ryankemper.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 381 posts

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#261

Post by sershe »

ashtonkem wrote: post #191
docdeek wrote: post #128

> Encourage at-risk groups to self quarantine, and utilize testing to protect them...Those with obesity and COPD Author suggests self-quarantine for the obese instead of quarantine/lockdown for everyone. The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese [0]. Are we really going to isolate or quarantine 4 out of 10 US adults and imagine the economy can get back on track? [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/d…

Also, advocates of re-opening vastly overestimate their ability to make that happen. I don’t feel safe going outside, so any suggestion that for the good of the economy I should do so will be met with a string of naughty words and continued quarantine on my part. If they want me to go back out and resume regular economic activity, they need to focus on what’ll make that feel safe again.

That only applies to a small subset, like WFHing techies who are not significantly affected. Economically, regardless of the moral implications of this, people who are impacted are much more likely to go back to work (to take an extreme example, in the developing world the choices for some are already COVID or starvation).

Recreation wise, I've seen lockdowns rolled out in WA. Whatever they didn't close immediately became extremely overcrowded; they even closed city parks for one weekend (2 weeks into stay at home order and with parking lots already closed), because they became insanely crowded, I run in a park nearby (Green Lake) and I've never seen it like that.

Basically, I'm sorry but you are probably privileged, self-righteous or prone to media fear-mongering; I suspect all 3. For the majority of the population, only the 3rd will have some effect, and that less than you'd think.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#262

Post by ashtonkem »

sojournerc wrote: post #257
ashtonkem wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You have no credentials or expertise to make public health recommendations” is not an ad hominem.

That's exactly ad-homimem. Instead of arguing against his points directly, they are dismissed because of who thre author is... Whether the author is a health official who has authority to do something is irrelevant to the substance of their opinion.

The traditional ad hominem is a personal attack on the character, beliefs, motivations, or characteristics of the speaker, which is why they’re considered out of bounds in polite society.

Discussing the experience and expertise that someone has in a subject when they’re making policy prescriptions is absolutely in bounds. While it sounds high minded to say that we should argue everything on the merits alone, the brutal reality is that this results in the experts (who are few) being shouted out by the amateurs (who are many).

Expertise matters; this isn’t debate club. If you’re going to start making extraordinary claims in a field you just started studying last month, you must provide extraordinary proof. Not having expertise in an area doesn’t make you a bad person, it just means that maybe we don’t have to listen to your take.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#263

Post by HarryHirsch »

ashtonkem wrote: post #191
docdeek wrote: post #128

> Encourage at-risk groups to self quarantine, and utilize testing to protect them...Those with obesity and COPD Author suggests self-quarantine for the obese instead of quarantine/lockdown for everyone. The CDC suggests that +42% of the US adult population is obese [0]. Are we really going to isolate or quarantine 4 out of 10 US adults and imagine the economy can get back on track? [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/d…

Also, advocates of re-opening vastly overestimate their ability to make that happen. I don’t feel safe going outside, so any suggestion that for the good of the economy I should do so will be met with a string of naughty words and continued quarantine on my part. If they want me to go back out and resume regular economic activity, they need to focus on what’ll make that feel safe again.

Exactly. Consider the US meat supply chain. 15 % of production capacity is off-line because the workforce is sick. It's not that they are at home afraid of real or imagined dangers, they cannot report to work because they are too ill. (Strangely, it's only the US. You don't hear about this from Italy, Germany or Britain.)

What are they going to do about it, conscript people to go work at Smithfield or Tyson until they fall over with coronaplague, too? You can't just issue edicts, you have to suppress transmission.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#264

Post by ashtonkem »

sershe wrote: post #261
ashtonkem wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, advocates of re-opening vastly overestimate their ability to make that happen. I don’t feel safe going outside, so any suggestion that for the good of the economy I should do so will be met with a string of naughty words and continued quarantine on my part. If they want me to go back out and resume regular economic activity, they need to focus on what’ll make that feel safe again.

That only applies to a small subset, like WFHing techies who are not significantly affected. Economically, regardless of the moral implications of this, people who are impacted are much more likely to go back to work (to take an extreme example, in the developing world the choices for some are already COVID or starvation). Recreation wise, I've seen lockdowns rolled out in WA. Whatever they didn't close immediately b…

It’s absolutely true that as a tech worker, I’m blessed that I can work from home. I’m thankful for that.

But you’re missing the point. Sending back my barista to Starbucks isn’t going to help said barista if I am unwilling to go to said coffee shop and spend money. The economy cannot start back up again until people start spending money again; my barista won’t spend money until they’re financially secure, and I won’t spend money on my barista until I feel that doing so won’t endanger my health.

Keep in mind that restaurant bookings were down 50% by mid March according to OpenTable. This is before most states had stay at home orders in place. A non-trivial portion of the economic collapse has been caused by entirely voluntary behavior, which is very hard to reverse.

I do however agree on recreation; governments should find a way to open up public spaces while preserving distance. I personally suspect that opening parks but constraining parking might do the trick, but I’m sure there are some weird caveats to that.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#265

Post by np_tedious »

watwut wrote: post #175
np_tedious wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to find a directionally-lockdown-lessening argument from an epidemiologist. Are you aware of any? This and David Katz are the closest things I've read. It seems to me these are big questions that necessitate a healthy debate considering all the pros and cons of lockdown measures. There's a lot of moving parts and dimensions: time, which activities should be resumed or kept closed, who should observe what p…

The imperial college recommended interminnent lockdowns - lock, release, lock, release and so on depending on how you keep it under control. Does that count? Germany is having this discussion and Czech republic too. In both cases, epidemiologist recommend slight release of rules (not a big one, but still lowering lockdown).

Yeah, that's absolutely what I'm looking for! Any particular articles or other links you'd recommend?

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#266

Post by jonahbenton »

Others have said it already. This piece is so deeply flawed as to be grotesque and macabre, its intellectual self-justification (including a use of Pareto that completely misunderstands the reason we use the term Pareto) blind to actual facts. We are as yet in most cases not at the banality of evil stage specifically with COVID but good lord it is work like this that makes it easy to see in real time how we get there.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#267

Post by blaser-waffle »

eythian wrote: post #235
ausbah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a good example of people saying the response was overblown, because the response had its intended effect

Yeah, it's similar to (what I'll call because I don't know a real name) the security guard paradox. If a security guard is doing their job well, then they shouldn't really be noticed and so seem unimportant. They'll only really be noticed if they fail in their job (or don't exist at all.)

"Who awards metals and ribbons for battles that are never fought?"

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#268

Post by scoot_718 »

sojournerc wrote: post #257
ashtonkem wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You have no credentials or expertise to make public health recommendations” is not an ad hominem.

That's exactly ad-homimem. Instead of arguing against his points directly, they are dismissed because of who thre author is... Whether the author is a health official who has authority to do something is irrelevant to the substance of their opinion.

Well, perhaps to avoid such attacks in future he could establish some sort of credentials in the area of interest.

Perhaps by gaining a degree and employment in the area of health and medicine?

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#269

Post by quotemstr »

shkkmo wrote: post #259
ryankemper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no directly relevant credentials whatsoever and don't claim to. (I actually considered saying as such in the writeup but it's already so verbose that I felt it wasn't worth it). I'm just a dude that likes to read research papers. As an aside, there is totally an archetype of the software engineer that thinks they're equipped to dive into unrelated fields, and I definitely match that trope. I will say in my def…

When have some expertise, you should absolutely evaluate ideas on their merits. When you lack the expertise to do that effectively, you should listen to the experts (ideally those that demonstrate that they are evaluating ideas based on their merits). The trick is determine which questions you have the expertise to evaluate for yourself and which you are better of relying on experts to evaluate. Unfortunately, this i…

Absolutely wrong. Analysis done by informed laymen is essential in breaking intellectual logjams in established fields. These situations happen over and over again in history. It's increasingly looking like we have one of these logjams in public health right now.

Ideas need to be evaluated on their merits in all cases, especially in times of controversy.

Re: A case for ending lockdown

#270

Post by [deleted] »

skdjsjkhfkdsjh wrote: post #258

A quick google search of "ashtonkem" indicates that people of that username like to weigh in on a very wide range of subjects. The one on HN has weighed in on software, team management, human physiology, human psychology, economics, to name a few.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN