Live data from Hacker News

Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

nature.com

791–800 of 837 posts

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just keeping a majority of an infected but not symptomatic persons spit from traveling around the room would seem like a win even if being in the presence of mask wearers being safer is harder to establish than the effecacy of mask wearing and it won't help if those most likely to spread the disease because they won't be careful aren't wearing them. Personally I've found n95 mask's with head straps more comfortable t…

Why not always wear a mask? Why have we decided this one specific illness deserves this level of “safety”?

TLDR: COVID has both a higher actual body count and a much higher potential body count along with asymptomatic transmission that makes masks which we have every reason to believe decrease transmission by decreasing the amount of fluid breathed out and thus the amount of virions spread through the environment even when cloth masks are worn imperfectly. Models of both chance of transmission and severity of disease decrease with dose of infectious particles.

The utility of preventative measures is defined by an estimate of the relative utility of mitigating vs not mitigating.

Covid is widespread in the community, deadly, very easily transmissible, and transmissible by asymptomatic carriers. This means the single most effective measure we have to avoid spreading illness, simply staying home when we feel ill, cannot and in many cases will not be practically effective alone because people wont practice it.

A mask lets someone who doesn't know they are contagious decrease the chance of spreading the disease in that time frame and it forces immoral people who go to work with their coughing and blowing their snotty nose to at least keep some of their mucus to themselves.

With various mitigation measures we have still lost over 700k people. There is every reason to believe that had we treated it like the flu which we callously spread by not even staying home when we are ill, not bothering to get vaccinated or mask we would have lost 2-3 million people based on the fatality rate experienced by individuals early on not to mention the challenged that would have been faced by our overwhelmed health care system. This is not even to speak of the long term damage to the bodies of survivors.

There is a tendency in those who complain about current health care measures to compare our costs despite countermeasures with the callously unmitigated costs of lesser challenges like the flu. As costs have mounted this becomes increasingly unreasonable as even the mitigated total grows much higher than the cost of something like flu.

We don't make everyone mask up during flu season because the ugly truth is we are ok with killing 50k mostly old people in flu season. We make this choice every time we go out of the house knowing we are sick and work sick knowing we will infect 5 more people who will infect 5 more people and so forth.

By contrast even with drastic mitigations in many case we still lost 350k in 2020 and will probably lose over 400k in 2021.

We have established that in the realm of infectious disease COVID is notably different from the next worst competition.

One could easily argue that behaviors like bad diet lead to as many unnecessary deaths but infectious disease unlike bad diet is something that the vulnerable cannot mitigate. Nobody chases you down and stuffs double cheeseburgers down your gullet but someone may silently exhale death while you all shop for your groceries or work together.

Thus the reason for our elected representatives to on our behalf to set ground rules to protect us from our fellow citizens irresponsibility.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#792
post #250
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just US, I would say there's a large number of very well educated people even in well off countries who have a large amount of hesitation toward this mainly due to information handling and lack of transparency. (Yes there is a very vocal anti-vax nut job crowd, but frankly that will always be there, and is always different to those who object to policy decisions on moral grounds of their failings and the deaths t…

> "please take it to stop it killing others" Given that the vaccine doesn't work to stop transmissions, I'd reckon this was just another way for the "experts" to further loose trust with the public.

Frankly it justified the huge expense in buying the defective product after contracting away the right to sue IMO... Given the media reporting in the really days made this vaccine seem like it'd be a guaranteed "cures what ails ya"...

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a complete mischaracterization, and bordering on a lie at this point. She was very specific about not taking it because President Trump said so (rightly, given Trump's history of promoting improving treatments). But you don't have to take my work for it, read her's: "If Dr. Fauci, the doctors, tell us that we should take it, I'll be the first in line to take it. But if Donald Trump tells us we should take it,…

Why would she say anything at all then? It would be impossible for Trump alone to authorize and recommend the vaccines. To many Democrats at the time this statement sowed doubts about the vaccines. My parents said they wouldn't get "Trump's vaccine". What you are failing to acknowledge is that how you understand the statement is not how everyone would interpret it, and many interpreted it as being against the vaccine…

I don't hear this being brought up by Democrats at all. And if you look at the statistics by party on who is getting vaccinated I think it is pretty stark that this is not having much of an effect. So even if that caused some Democrats to think that at the time, they seem to have gotten over that.

Looking at the both the statistics, and what media sources are pushing anti-vax sentiments, I don't think your argument has much of a leg to stand on. It is distorting a statement to try and justify a "they are bad", or a "they are bad too" attitude.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP’s point was that the argument in favor of vaccines needs to be made more convincingly. What does that actually mean? How could the information be presented more convincingly?

My point is that the argument can't be made more convincing if the argument isn't allowed. Even if the information all points in one direction, and at this point it more or less does, I see it being presented in a way where any questioning or dissent is actively ridiculed or repressed. This naturally causes suspicion. Instead of presenting the vaccine information as a flood of not to be questioned, yet well meaning,…

You aren't really answering my question. Despite Youtube removing misinformation, anti-vaxxers have loudly and repeatedly 'made their point.' The marketplace of ideas is alive and well. It's hard to have an open and honest discussion with groups that falsify data, but many vaccine advocates have nonetheless engaged directly and publicly with anti-vaxxers.

What specifically is lacking in the pro-vaccine argument? I'm not asking about censorship, as it is seemingly a moot point. OPs point is that the argument needs to be made more convincingly and spoken louder. What does that look like in practice?

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What leads you to conclude that defending yourself with up to/including deadly force against an intruder with unknown (but quite reasonably presumed to be criminal) intent is unreasonable? Breaking into an occupied residence is a quite serious crime and I don't think it's reasonable to require the inhabitants to sit down over tea and find out what the invader's intentions are before mounting a defense. Don't want to…

There was a gun in the house when I was a kid. Explicitly to protect the family against intruders. Number of times intrusions occurred: 0 Number of times the gun went off by accident: 2 Number of times a drunken adult gave the gun, loaded, to a kid: 1

Irresponsibility and negligence are certainly sad but not very good reasons why people should be stripped of the ability to defend themself and their loved ones

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an argument based on emotional appeal than rational objectivity. See: “Think about the children”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

I find the smug self-confidence in their own rationality that some on this site show to be extremely off-putting. Most people are not nearly as objective as they think they are. Saying that it is better for 3 million people to be alive rather than dead is not an emotional appeal, it's actually quite rational if our goal is to not kill people.

Not really and you’re just proving the point. Killing people is an acceptable trade off - you do it every day. Otherwise we’d stop driving, flying or take any risks. You’re appealing to the emotion and doubling down on it.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#797
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This matches a lot of my own experience in trying to convince people to take reasonable precautions and get vaccinated. And I was one of the first in line for my age group in my state. You have to do things to build trust first, and you have to be willing to admit that some of the measures taken are farcical and have no basis in science. People will listen to a reasonable, nuanced discussion. They won't listen to som…

You should really cite something to back up your claim that non-N95 masks don't help.

>You should really cite something to back up your claim that non-N95 masks don't help.

I suspect that depends on what someone means by the word "help."

N-95 masks have filters that (IIUC) are fine enough to block most SARS-Cov2 containing droplets from being inhaled.

Other masks do not have such filters.

However, that's not the rationale for encouraging widespread masking. Since many COVID infections are asymptomatic and transmission is certainly possible for those who are pre-symptomatic, the rationale is that non-N95 masks don't protect the wearer, but rather those around the wearer, as they trap some (more or less, depending on the materials in such a mask) SARS-Cov2 containing droplets, making an infected person less likely to infect others.

So, if by "help" someone means "this will help keep me from being infected by others," then that argument is correct.

However, if by "help" someone means "this will help keep me from infecting others, and with widespread use of masking, help others from infecting me" then that argument is specious.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the smug self-confidence in their own rationality that some on this site show to be extremely off-putting. Most people are not nearly as objective as they think they are. Saying that it is better for 3 million people to be alive rather than dead is not an emotional appeal, it's actually quite rational if our goal is to not kill people.

Not really and you’re just proving the point. Killing people is an acceptable trade off - you do it every day. Otherwise we’d stop driving, flying or take any risks. You’re appealing to the emotion and doubling down on it.

> Killing people is an acceptable trade off - you do it every day. Otherwise we’d stop driving, flying or take any risks. You’re appealing to the emotion and doubling down on it.

Sure, if you only consider first-order effects from car accidents.

A world without easy transportation is a less well off one and one that likely has more people dying/living shorter lives than our present one.

Saying that someone dying is bad is not an appeal to emotion. I'm a consequentialist - I believe we should implement welfare improving policies.

A policy that saved 3 million people, in my view, is a net good one.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really liked the Chinese policy of welding people in their homes (where some starved to death) and lying to the populace about the real numbers and severity of the coronavirus.

Yeah, when there's a deadly pandemic, some people will need to be quarantined. I liked the bit where 3 million people didn't die, whereas 700k people died here.

There are some things the government just shouldn't be able to do, regardless of the justification. One of those things is locking people in their homes for an indeterminate amount of time.

Re: Covid lesson: trust the public with hard truths

#800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing health checks and restricting foreign nationals arriving from specific high risk areas is not extreme at all, that has been done plenty of times. I don't think it is comparable at all to the unprecedented restrictions that become normal in the last 1-2 years. >Do you think it would have been OK to implement restrictions at the start of the pandemic, just not now? Yes. In the beginning nobody knew how dangerous…

> In the beginning nobody knew how dangerous the virus was, so risk management should have been much more strict. That won't work. Right now we have a pretty good idea of how dangerous the virus is, and plenty of US citizens don't want to participate the risk management of wearing a mask or even vaccinating. Hell many governors are outright forbidding vaccine mandates. Those same people aren't going to go along with…

The same people I knew who were buying canned food and masks in the beginning of 2020 while the governments and health organisations said it was nothing are now the "antivaxxers". Humans are rightfully afraid of the unknown. I fit into this group

However, the next pandemic could be very different now that covid has been used as a political tool and people think of such a relatively mild illness when they think of 'pandemic'.

Post reply on HN