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

America is giving up on the pandemic?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#371

Post by jdsully »

pstuart wrote: post #72
redisman wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What ever the answer is (and I don’t think there’s a non-partisan one), we’re screwed. Hopefully we’ll get new data on masks giving us a 80/20 solution since I don’t think either side of the political divide is going to buy the stay-at-home order much longer. “How come they can break it but we can’t?”

We are screwed. Partisanship has been extended to such a degree that it guarantees that "both sides" remain opposed. Science should not be a partisan topic. Mistakes get made, but those should be learning opportunities rather than a chance to discredit your "opponent".

Science is partisan because its being misapplied. It cannot tell you what you should do, that is the realm of leadership. All it can say is whether a course of action may lead to a certain outcome.

Whether such outcome is desirable vs the trade-offs is not a scientific fact as desirability only exists in the minds of each individual.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#372

Post by bb2018 »

rpiguy wrote: post #312
achenatx wrote: post #294

Just wanted to add that the abolish the police sentiment isnt as inane as it sounds on the surface. Abolish the police is about taking away responsibilities that police have today and giving them to people more suitable. Police - people trained for aggression with weapons to stop violent criminals should not be handling: 1) mental health 2) homeless 3) drug addiction 4) domestic violence 5) traffic stops etc etc They…

Unfortunately, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all extremely dangerous. The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That guy on drugs could stab you, you could pull a car over and that person could have a gun, you could go to stop domestic violence and get attacked. Police brutality goes up proportionately with violent crime in their area. In other words, the more police deal…

I'm sure there is great data on police calls but from my experience with calling 911 social workers wouldn't really help. Earlier this year there was a homeless man waving a knife at pedestrians a few blocks from my house. I know this is a mental health issue and we need do do more for our homelesss - but I couldn't ask officers to deal with stuff like that on the regular with little or no protection.

I've also called 911 in the past when my house was burglarized, two men on a highway got into a fist fight after one's car hit the other, and once when a man was wandering into the middle of the highway trying to get himself run over. You could limit the number of guns but there are real issues that I think you'd want a well-equpied force for.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#373

Post by smsm42 »

metrokoi wrote: post #90

Quoted from a letter from 1,000 health professionals on the virus and protests [0] >However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from…

> However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission

That's a shining example of weasel speak. They don't explicitly say it's not risky - because that would be plain lying, it is obviously risky - but they are saying they are not condemning it as risky. Which most people would take as implying it's not actually risky - even though they are not saying that. They are saying that the protest is too important to take health considerations into account, but they are reluctant to speak plainly and tell people there's risk but they should be adult and choose to manage the risks themselves and maybe neglect small risk in order to achieve bigger thing. Because that's what they spent last several months - and in fact, many years before - trying to convince people there's no way they can be treated as adults and just given the information and left to manage the risks by themselves. Just in this case, our betters had decided the COVID risk is less important than protesting - so it's OK for us. But only in cases which are approved by our betters. If you want to protest something else - it's still risky as heck and there they can fully condemn.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#374

Post by DuskStar »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #328
refurb wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think things are worse now than in the 1960's, I don't know what to tell you. They were way worse. Multiple politicians assassinated. Major multi-day riots across multiple cities with hundred dead. Then a president being impeached. 2020 doesn't even come close to the 1960's.

I remember the 1980 Miami Riots and the 1992 LA riots. This is basically nothing like that. Fundamental difference the protestors aren't the ones engaging in violence, the cops are.

I seem to have missed the police setting buildings on fire and beating up shopowners.

Not to say that the police haven't committed a ton of violence in these protests, but it's not all them.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#375

Post by clairity »

monadic2 wrote: post #49
clairity wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if they’re outside and elbow-to-elbow, then it means they’re likely not continuously spitting in each others’ faces. it’s marginally better if they stood a little farther apart but that risk shouldn’t scare you . worry about real risks, like police with riot gear.

Somehow I don’t have your confidence—I haven’t even gone inside the bars. Anyway I’m not worried for myself, I’m gonna be fine in all likelihood—it’s my at-risk friends and family.

too many people are beholden to irrational fear with this pandemic, rather than understanding. going into a bar is not a problem for your at-risk friends or family. it's what you do inside that matters.

having a physically distant beer with a friend (assuming an uncrowded bar, as is required in most places) is quite low risk. geting hammered and carrying on with a bunch of in-your-face strangers is not.

just avoid exchanging spit with strangers. being outside is the easiest and best method, and maintaining a little distance is a close second. wear a mask indoors if you can't maintain distance. it's easy.

then you can set the fear aside and move on with your life.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#376

Post by zarathustreal »

DuskStar wrote: post #366
zarathustreal wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this suggestion. If you want to take guns away from police at least allow me to legally defend myself. Imagine criminals being the only ones with guns.

"but that'll lead to more school shootings!", cry the people who've apparently never considered that school shootings are premeditated and the shooters tend not to care about the law.

"Think of the children!" is nothing more than an appeal to fear, the oldest form of manipulation.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#377

Post by divbzero »

daffy wrote: post #360
dang wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a stub comment to collect replies in one place, so that it can be collapsed and prevent too much offtopicness at the top of the thread.

What's wrong with cross-examination?

I think the gist is to avoid aggressively picking apart minor details, and instead discuss the main points. This is in line with another section of the guidelines:

“Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#378

Post by [deleted] »

twblalock wrote: post #92

The article’s authors are losing sight of the original justification for the lockdowns: “flatten the curve” was about preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed. Of course cases will increase when people leave their homes. But have the hospitals been overwhelmed in any of the states that started to reopen several weeks ago? No! In that case the lockdowns have served their purpose. The authors of this article are arg…

[deleted]

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#379

Post by gridlockd »

throw0101a wrote: post #331
rpiguy wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are all extremely dangerous. The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That guy on drugs could stab you, you could pull a car over and that person could have a gun, you could go to stop domestic violence and get attacked. Police brutality goes up proportionately with violent crime in their area. In other words, the more police deal…

> There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. Not all Police are armed (see UK). Also, other countries, while armed, seem to use their firearms much less (e.g., the entire country of Germany seems to use fewer bullets than a single US city).

The vast majority of police forces are armed, even in low-crime countries.

> the entire country of Germany seems to use fewer bullets than a single US city

So perhaps guns are not actually the problem? There's commensurately little crime occurring in Germany, crime is not punished as harshly and criminals are not armed to the same degree.

When somebody is getting arrested in the US, they're looking at years in harsh prisons. They're likely to use any sort of irrational means to avoid or resist getting arrested.

Re: America is giving up on the pandemic?

#380

Post by newjersey »

jabedude wrote: post #351
chrisseaton wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Not Police would be in grave danger. There is a reason that the Police Police are armed. That don't need to be armed with firearms. That's overkill (literally overkill, unfortunately) for community policing. They could have batons. Firearms should be restricted to specialists deployed only when needed for a specifically authorised task.

> That don't need to be armed with firearms You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public. 43 states are "shall-issue" and allow residents to conceal carry a firearm after completing required training and submitting an application.

> You're asking police officers to be less armed then the general public.

Can we at least agree that off-duty police officers working as security guards at a hospital or elsewhere should not under any circumstance carry a weapon (other than perhaps a stick or something) while on non-police duty?

> Soon, from inside the room, there was shouting, sounds of a scuffle and a loud pop. During an altercation, two off-duty Houston police officers, moonlighting as security guards, had shocked Mr. Pean with a Taser, fired a bullet into his chest, then handcuffed him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/hospital-guns-mental-h...

> Mr. Pean said he was informed of the dismissal of the assault charges against him in a phone call to New York, where he is finishing college. He said he was relieved but remained deeply disturbed by his experience, noting that his family spent more than $100,000 in his defense. “If I was someone else, I could have ended up in jail,” he said.

> After the incident, federal health officials conducted an emergency investigation and faulted the hospital for the shooting, saying that St. Joseph had created “immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of its patients” and ordered that it restrict use of weapons and provide more training in dealing with mentally ill patients.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/us/alan-pean-hospital-gun...

In addition, perhaps if a police officer is not "on duty", felony assault charges should not be possible. This may sound harsh but imagine a bus driver goes on a walk and someone hits him on the head with a stick. Does that carry felony assault charges as well?

I think many people are saying a police officer's testimony should be void in a court of law if they do not have other evidence (in which case the evidence can stand on its own without the officer's testimony).

Post reply on HN