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

How Apocalyptic Is Now?

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#61

Post by moosey »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #51
paulryanrogers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hindsight is 20/20. Without lockdown it could have been significantly worse. And even if not there was no way to know beforehand. As restrictions are ended any future waves should provide more insight into their effectiveness.

Unelected public officials and local/state politicians seem unwilling to give up their newfound powers. Any objections to or questioning of their rationale or edicts is immediately dismissed as ignorant death wishes of the unwashed masses.

You are exalting ignorance. That's what actually needs to stop.

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#62

Post by czzr »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #32

Australia, 98 deaths and 16 people in ICU. Entire economy destroyed. Either we will make money meaningless by printing it out of thin air or coming decades will witness crushing tax. 5 million people unemployed out of population of 22 million. Someone fucked up.

So, before the lockdowns it was observed that if actions are successful then some people will claim they weren’t necessary.

Since you seem to be one of those people - what’s your thinking here? Do you really think those numbers (98 deaths and 16 in ICU) would be exactly the same if no action was taken? What’s your mental model of how that would work?

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#63

Post by airlines55 »

moosey wrote: post #61
drevil-v2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unelected public officials and local/state politicians seem unwilling to give up their newfound powers. Any objections to or questioning of their rationale or edicts is immediately dismissed as ignorant death wishes of the unwashed masses.

You are exalting ignorance. That's what actually needs to stop.

Well meaning overbearing incompetency seems little better. Has there been a more thorough refutation of the promised land of technocrats than these past couple months?

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#64

Post by TopHand »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #44
drevil-v2 wrote: post #32

Australia, 98 deaths and 16 people in ICU. Entire economy destroyed. Either we will make money meaningless by printing it out of thin air or coming decades will witness crushing tax. 5 million people unemployed out of population of 22 million. Someone fucked up.

Hindsight is 20/20. Without lockdown it could have been significantly worse. And even if not there was no way to know beforehand. As restrictions are ended any future waves should provide more insight into their effectiveness.

At what point do we draw the line that a certain number of deaths outweigh a certain amount of human misery or vice versa. In my state they don't even erect a traffic light until a certain number of people have died in that road intersection.

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#65

Post by dredmorbius »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #58

I take exception to this analysis: "The numbers killed in terrorist incidents may be small. But the threat is endemic, and the texture of everyday life has altered profoundly. Video cameras and security procedures in public places have become part of the way we live." The author writes about this as if our response to terrorism is some sort of deterministic feature of the natural world. Instead, however, our response…

There is a diffeerence between modes of threat. A visible threat vs. an invisible one, an undirected threat vs. a directed one.

Some years ago I realised that there are in fact two uses of the term "invisible* in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Among oths I find the significance of the more well-known one to be greatly overstated. But the other seems notable on several counts:

"Regularity, order, and prompt obedience to command are qualities which, in modern armies, are of more importance towards determining the fate of battles than the dexterity and skill of the soldiers in the use of their arms. But the noise of firearms, the smoke, and the invisible death to which every man feels himself every moment exposed as soon as he comes within cannon-shot, and frequently a long time before the battle can be well said to be engaged, must render it very difficult to maintain any considerable degree of this regularity, order, and prompt obedience, even in the beginning of a modern battle. In an ancient battle there was no noise but what arose from the human voice; there was no smoke, there was no invisible cause of wounds or death. Every man, till some mortal weapon actually did approach him, saw clearly that no such weapon was near him. In these circumstances, and among troops who had some confidence in their own skill and dexterity in the use of their arms, it must have been a good deal less difficult to preserve some degree regularity and order...

Smith, WoN, Book V, Chapter 1

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/...

That is, it's the loss of certainty and security which of itself is exceptionally disruptive of order.

Terrorism is (generally) rare, but is specifically directed so as to inflict maximal disruption.

Disease, especially epidemics, are trust attacks. We cannot be know with any certainty what otherwise innocent and trivial encounters or activities might. have major consequence. Entirely unaware individuals may be exposing others to grave harm. Paranoia is prudence.

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#66

Post by paulryanrogers »

TopHand wrote: post #64
paulryanrogers wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hindsight is 20/20. Without lockdown it could have been significantly worse. And even if not there was no way to know beforehand. As restrictions are ended any future waves should provide more insight into their effectiveness.

At what point do we draw the line that a certain number of deaths outweigh a certain amount of human misery or vice versa. In my state they don't even erect a traffic light until a certain number of people have died in that road intersection.

Deaths are one measure. Permanently reduced lung capacity is another. Measuring the costs accurately will take time.

Each community is making those calls as they see fit, hence the variety of guidelines at every level. Would you feel more at ease with a federally mandated reopening which overrides all local authorities?

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#67

Post by naveen99 »

mathdev wrote: post #7

Interesting predictions. However, they do not fit the facts on the ground, at least here in Poland, which is some weeks ahead of the US with respect to the development of the epidemic. (I'm relieved that) people have gotten sick and tired of the restrictions, about 50% (and growing every day) are not wearing the masks inside anymore, or bother with the distancing, despite official requirements. All restaurants and ba…

Poland and the rest of the world is just slower to change culturally. If what he describes happens in the usa, it will happen elsewhere just takes 10 years longer, but maybe less.

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#68

Post by naveen99 »

Agree with the thesis. Change just accelerated. we are as likely to go back to our careless attitude about respiratory infectious disease as we are to doing surgeries without masks and gloves.

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#69

Post by lcall »

Really, if one is thinking about the end of the world, it is good to prepare, but we don't have to fear as we can be OK. In my belief system we have living prophets (comparable to Noah with the ark, etc etc), and they provide much good advice and support for us in these times. But yes, it is good to be humble & wise, to learn, and to prepare. I've put notes on what/why and how I reliably learned for myself, at my simple site (deals w/ climate change but applies to the rest of it...). I am just me and can be wrong, but am very confident in this case: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html

(ps: I realize this will seem wacko to most, but I'd appreciate it if you skim my reasoning, I worked hard to make it skimmable while saying in detail how I came to these conclusions, and add a reasoned comment, with any downvotes. Thanks.)

Re: How Apocalyptic Is Now?

#70

Post by oneiftwo »

yogthos wrote: post #54
oneiftwo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How anyone can continue to place so much faith into dogmatic science, after the global and nearly universal failure of these same institutions to properly prepare for and handle covid, is beyond me. This post is pure fear porn. Environmentalists have been making these same doomsday predictions since literally the 60s and deadlines continue to come and go without incident. Look, the papers that predict what's more lik…

The scientists did not fail to prepare for the pandemic, and the countries that had scientists in the driving seat handled the pandemic very well. For example, Vietnam currently has no deaths from covid-19 precisely because scientists were in charge. Meanwhile, countries like US, who dismissed the scientists have the highest death toll in the world. Climate change denialists don't seem to grasp the concept of basic r…

>Vietnam currently has no deaths from covid-19 precisely because scientists were in charge

Vietnam was prepared because they, like Taiwan, knew from the start that China was lying and took proactive steps that western countries failed to take.

>Yet, idiots who have absolutely zero understanding of this domain continue to insist that there's nothing to worry about because they read something on Facebook that one time

I'm a geoscientist. The fact that climate dogma is righteous dogma doesn't mean it isn't dogma. You claim that none of us have the qualifications to question climate change, but somehow we are equipped to call "deniers" idiots?

>People who actually study the climate are the ones who have the best idea of what will happen. Period. These people are unanimously telling the rest of us that all the best available evidence suggests that horrific things will happen.

Except if you actually read an IPCC report (not the made for headlines summaries, dig in a page or two) you'll see that in reality scientists are far less certain, and all this world ending talk is literally worst case. And historic data tells us that even the most rapid historic climate changes happened over scales comparable to human lifespans.

>You're essentially advocating for playing Russian roulette with our biosphere

There's a grand irony here - once again, like the reopen controversy, the people have chosen the side of the majority of "scientists" and hunkered down, shaming others with worst case threats while ignoring that mitigation is also enormously expensive and pretending that anyone questioning the lockdown is a denier. Your dogma leaves no room for shades of gray.

I'm out of room to explain for the billionth time so I'll keep it short - climate change is one of the softest of sciences because it is purely model and backtest driven. That leaves a massive gap in capabilities to be nicely filled with unquestionable dogma. The fact that those ignorant Republicans don't understand climate change doesn't mean that the learned and capable among us shouldn't be free to question the narrative.

Look at how poorly we understand nutrition - that's arguably at least as rigorous of a science as climate change yet the difference here is at least the conclusions are falsifiable. Meanwhile the food pyramid has been dangerously incorrect for decades.

You put too much faith in modern institutions.

Post reply on HN