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

South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 521 posts

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#321

Post by mensetmanusman »

eej71 wrote: post #209
whalesalad wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if 10 years from now we discover that wearing a mask was a completely pointless endeavor .... the cost of wearing a mask is SO LOW that it is worth doing it. But it is scientifically proven to limit the rate of the spread, which is the least I can do to protect myself and those around me. I don't care if I get covid ... I don't think it will kill me based on my vitals. However, we don't fully understand the long…

A counter point to consider - and one that I consider to be a little more rational - is that - what if in the messaging to get people to wear masks - we have inadvertantly encouraged riskier behavior? As an analogy, I'd explain it like this. What if in the process to encourage people to wear seatbelts, drivers who did that then felt entitled to drive even faster thus resulting in even worse accidents and more frequen…

This is called risk compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#322

Post by rzz3 »

Impashin wrote: post #270
uoaei wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The state" refers to the governing apparatus, not a particular state within the union. I understand there may be some confusion if you are not familiar with the US government and typical ways of talking about it.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/ Please cite me where the power to enact a requirement to wear masks is explicitly granted to the federal government. I'll wait.

They’d probably just dump a justification under the interstate commerce clause like they do with every other federal government overreach.

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#323

Post by km3r »

Rooster61 wrote: post #298
Animats wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy surg. mask or tell them to put one on. In the more advanced countries, such as Thailand, this is automated.[1] The store entrance gate won't open until the automated face scan has seen a mask. Hikvision has a mask and temperature detection system integrated with their face recognition systems.[2] If you already have a face recognit…

> In the more advanced countries, such as Thailand, this is automated. Having facial recognition everywhere isn't necessarily considered "advanced" in all circles. Technically, perhaps. Ethically? Not so much. Facial recognition could be put everywhere in the US. Its primarily the political, legal, and social culture that prevents it, not the access to sufficient technology.

calling this facial recognition is a bit of stretch when its more akin to "is a mask present?", not trying to match to people in a database. No different then self driving cars detecting a pedestrian. very far from unethical (although i would hope they would make an effort to accommodate all skin colors to not unintentionally discriminate against anyone.)

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#324

Post by [deleted] »

dhruvmittal wrote: post #218
cbfrench wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, what freedoms are those? Where are they enumerated in the text of the Constitution, its amendments, or the corpus of constitutional jurisprudence? Citing “the freedoms guaranteed by The Constitution” is fairly meaningless in the abstract. There are specific protections and rights afforded by the Constitution that have been defined in the actual constitutional text and whose interpretation has been refin…

The constitution on its own doesn't guarantee any freedoms, so we must look to the Bill of Rights. Does mask wearing fall under: - Freedom of speech? No. - Freedom of the press? No. - Freedom of religion? No. - Freedom of assembly? No. - Right to petition the government? No. - Right to bear arms? No. - Protection against housing soldiers in civilian homes? No. - Protection against unreasonable search and seizure? No.…

[deleted]

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#325

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

Diederich wrote: post #232
vkou wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimal lockdown isn't the reason those countries brought the virus under control. One hard lockdown, supported by incredibly through contact tracing was. I don't think a single polity in the US, including NYC had a single hard lockdown. And I know that not a single polity in the US has managed to do effective contact tracing.

Thanks for your feedback. To be clear: I wasn't saying that minimal lockdown was the reason for low numbers, though how I laid it out is definitely unclear. My belief is that near universal mask compliance is the main reason some countries have managed to keep the virus under control even though they haven't been forced to do severe lockdowns. Your point about contact tracing is relevant of course. I know both Japan…

It seems that both Japan and Korea did reverse contact tracing, where you figure out where the infected person got the disease. This is in contrast to many other places, which just tried to assess where the infected person could have spread the disease.

This may perhaps (along with masks, and the use of pretty much every source of data by Korea) explain much of the variance in outcomes.

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#326

Post by dragonwriter »

Impashin wrote: post #227
CerealFounder wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure why this is downvoted, especially on a site like HN. If you had a CEO that was anti tracking CAC and just said, doing marketing is enough. The corporate culture of employees would drift toward not tracking CAC (cost of acquisition), even though none of the employees are obligated to buy into that. The thing that is lost on the national vs state debate is that the presidents role in a our state powered rep…

In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. If Biden wins, this fact does not change, and he cannot enforce any policy regarding masks. "Marketing" from the President is irrelevant here as demonstrated by coding123's comment: > even the republican counties are under a mask order > Grocery stores even are employing someone to just stand there and either hand a cheapy s…

> In America, any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states. If Biden wins, this fact does not change, and he cannot enforce any policy regarding masks.

Sure he can.

The exact parameters of any such mandate and its manner of enforcement is circumscribed, but that doesn't mean there is no legally-enforceable federal mask mandate. A direct federal individual mask mandate, with direct personal liability for violations, is least likely to be Constitutional.

A federal mandate that states adopt, enforce, and demonstrate adequate compliance with such a mandate, with failure resulting in additional restrictions on interstate travel and trade, is certainly not only within the power of the federal government under the Commerce Clause, but also the executive branch under the Public Health Services Act and other laws relating to federal commerce-related responses relating to public safety.

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#327

Post by dragonwriter »

clairity wrote: post #312
chillwaves wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know who else has the power to lead people and states? The federal government. Almost like they were empowered specifically for this kind of scenario.

no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them. it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.

> no, the federal government exists to defend the interests of the states, and resolve disputes between them.

Clearly, yes.

> it's not meant to be a higher level of authority.

The Supremacy Clause fairly explicitly disagrees.

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#328

Post by paradox242 »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #166
anoonmoose wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis most people provide is either an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of the rights given to US citizens by the Constitution of the United States, unfortunately.

And your statement shows you do not understand the constitution, or more specifically the bill of rights. You are not given them, they are recognized as natural rights not government granted rights, and the bill of rights merely recognizes them. If someone doesn’t want to wear a mask that is their choice. Your choice is to avoid situations where you might be in contact with people who don’t wear masks. It’s not to fo…

One might be tempted to agree if the converse were observed, those who believe in their right to not wear masks should observe the rights of those who ask that all who enter or interact with their staff wear masks. If you choose not to wear a mask, you choose not to enter that store or engage that employee. The problem is we have people who want people around them wearing masks, yet those people are refusing to stay away and in a number of instances assaulted and even murdered people who tried to restrict their movement into private property with a mask requirement.

I hear your line of reasoning from these same crazed individuals so I am lead to believe that this is the extreme end of that set of beliefs without also observing the corollary that I mention above..

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#329

Post by chillwaves »

Diederich wrote: post #95
nappy-doo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work on the mobile contact tracing effort (FAANG), and I am exhausted thinking about it as well, and I don't even risk my life everyday. Part of me wants to say, "fuck these idiots that don't wear masks, just die," but know that they will just get others sick on the way, and use up scarce resources.

This is a harsh thing to say, but I understand where you're coming from. We....all of us, all human beings...need to be very patient and merciful with each other. My wife and I know good, honest and smart people who are fully convinced that Covid19 isn't that dangerous, that it's a hoax, etc. I'm not saying "smart" lightly. All humans...even the best of us...are at our core deeply irrational most of the time. Differe…

Thank you for your comment.

I would describe what is happening as rationality 'blind spots' -- everyone has them about different subjects. It's not a matter of smart vs stupid. That framing of the world is too simplistic to be valuable.

Re: South Dakota nurse says many dying patients still insist Covid-19 'not real'

#330

Post by jasonlaramburu »

jorge-fundido wrote: post #184
hawkesnest wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In deaths, somewhat true. But in cases, the US in the upper-eschelon!

Why are cases important? Assuming PCR, can get whatever result you want with the cycle threshold (discussion begins around minute 3:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE Want more positive cases? Use a higher threshold. Want to scare the population into compliance? Use a higher threshold. Want to demonstrate that person X or policy Y was effective against stopping spread? Use a lower threshold.

This is pure FUD. Why spread misinformation?
Post reply on HN