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

Oh, 2022

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 557 posts

Re: Oh, 2022

#431

Post by helloworld11 »

ErikAugust wrote: post #76

“If the SARS family of coronaviruses had emerged just a decade earlier it's quite likely we'd be on the brink of civilizational, if not species-level, extinction by now—SARS1 has 20% mortality among patients, MERS (aka SARS2) is up around 35-40% fatal, SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. If SARS1 had gone pandemic we might plausibly have lost a billion people within two years.” That’s a sc…

>SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. Just blatantly untrue and easily verifiable as such. The IFR of the virus behind COVID-19 is maybe 0.4%, and even this varies a bit based on demographics. 1% is an exaggeration that I wouldn't expect from an obviously intelligent individual like Stross, 4% is just way out in left field as far as misstating the basic facts goes. I generally detest the highly politicized phrase "misinformation", but percentages like these almost give it legitimacy in the context of debate about COVID.

Re: Oh, 2022

#432

Post by yourusername »

drewm1980 wrote: post #419

I stopped reading when the author listed chicken pox alongside much more lethal childhood diseases. That said, I'm still pro vaccination for chicken pox, and went out of my way to get my child vaccinated even though it is extremely uncommon here in Belgium.

So odd to call chicken pox lethal. It's not in the government vaccination program in the Netherlands. 97% of kids have had it. I've never heard of someone dying from it. When i was a kid getting chicken pox was very much not a big deal and expected.

Re: Oh, 2022

#433

Post by chris1993 »

djtango wrote: post #355
Jedd wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia, it's $140 / month, plus the capex of $700 for the dish, which obviously won't work on any other provider. I suspect resale on that device, if the carrier allows it, would be reasonable, but I don't expect I'd be moving away from this service. People are comparing (sub)urban US multi-carrier options, or heavily populated countries (like Italy), that have much cheaper pricing. It's not surprising that ter…

>but unusable in storms Dumb Q - is satellite any better in a storm?

Storms, and just heavy rain, consistently send our satellite internet offline. This is Australian “sky muster plus” pointing at a geosynchronous satellite at a higher orbit than starlink.

Re: Oh, 2022

#434

Post by donquichotte »

> and political instability (in large part a side-effect of social media

That is a little bit too simplistic, isn't it? First, there was political instability before social media. Second, it seems that a lot of people are dissatisfied with how things are going, which is of little surprise given huge wealth inequality and a general rise in totalitarianism and authoritarianism all over the world.

The sentence also carries the connotation that political instability is inherently bad, hinting that the status quo cannot be improved. I'd argue against that - sometimes it's good to show the ruling class that they will not get away with everything and are being held accountable by the people whose fate they decide.

Re: Oh, 2022

#435

Post by erosenbe0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #256
walrus01 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the immediate personal need to not live in a flooded zone is one thing to consider another thing to think about is the global geopolitical/civil war/economic possible disruptions and consequences of something like potentially half to 3/4 of bangladesh's population becoming international refugees. imagine what happened with syrians around 2012-2015 and people trying to get into europe multiplied by a factor of 50. and…

The answer is pretty simple, though you may not like it: lots of people will die.

Plenty of people already currently die from poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, poor nutrition, and conflicts. So maybe the number of these preventable deaths stays about constant as poverty improves but climate worsens?

Re: Oh, 2022

#436

Post by ruined »

jacquesm wrote: post #256
walrus01 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the immediate personal need to not live in a flooded zone is one thing to consider another thing to think about is the global geopolitical/civil war/economic possible disruptions and consequences of something like potentially half to 3/4 of bangladesh's population becoming international refugees. imagine what happened with syrians around 2012-2015 and people trying to get into europe multiplied by a factor of 50. and…

The answer is pretty simple, though you may not like it: lots of people will die.

death is never simple. it turns out to be highly motivating, and motivated people tend to do all kinds of complicated things.

Re: Oh, 2022

#437

Post by Andy_G11 »

Climate change and associated socio-economic / political upheaval, ICE vs EVs, pandemics, and space colonisation are some of the headline points I picked up on in the article. But there are so many other things going on, too:

1. The aging population in many societies with the associated adjustment of services in some economies including medical and care homes, perhaps also reduced economic growth rates and strain on savings and pensions. Rise of the robo-attendant? Increased 'retirement estate' mode of living? 2. Medical advances to deal with age-related disease (telomere studies, stem cells, advances in treatment of alzheimers, cancer, arthritis, deterioration of eyesight, hearing and teeth, new prosthetics etc). 3. Increased wealth concentration - a natural outcome of capital accruing a faster rate of return than labour (see Piketty), and associated with reduced per capita and overall productivity. How to preserve high standards of living for the wealthy and increase the standards of living for the less well off whilst dealing with the tensions with the potential to turn this into a zero sum game. 4. Technological advances which may increase productivity, including AI and robotic process automation. Perhaps further labour shedding associated with the increasing automation of 'thought' and 'creativity' (i.e. brought under the remit of capital).

And of course a raft of other things... Plenty of opportunity and risk ahead.

Re: Oh, 2022

#439

Post by divbzero »

inasio wrote: post #382
j0057 wrote: post #61

> low-lying coastal nations like Bangladesh And lots of other places. About 1 billion people live along coastlines at 20 meters or less above sea level, and 200 million at 5 meters or less. I live in a wealthy country but well within the 5 meters range and am already having to think about whether it wouldn't be more prudent to sell my house today, now that it's still worth something, and emigrate to somewhere with a…

Friend of mine works at IEA, specifically on water projects. Over drinks he told me his biggest worry is the Himalayas basin destabilizing. Water from those glaciers supply something like 2bn+ people.

One of the Mission: Imposible films contains a bastardized version of that scenario.

Re: Oh, 2022

#440

Post by marvin »

ansible wrote: post #374
ErikAugust wrote: post #76

“If the SARS family of coronaviruses had emerged just a decade earlier it's quite likely we'd be on the brink of civilizational, if not species-level, extinction by now—SARS1 has 20% mortality among patients, MERS (aka SARS2) is up around 35-40% fatal, SARS-NCoV19, aka SARS3, is down around the 1-4% fatality level. If SARS1 had gone pandemic we might plausibly have lost a billion people within two years.” That’s a sc…

I view COVID-19 as relatively uniquely able to become a global pandemic. 1. Delayed onset of symptoms. That you can spread the disease for a couple days before you first have symptoms has caused so much spreading. If, instead, people were showing symptoms within 12 hours, they'd be much more likely to not be out and about the next day spreading the disease. 2. Wide range of symptoms. Some people felt nearly nothing.…

"Kills only 0.2%" (as long as healthcare is available) is a killer feature, so to speak. It hits right where it's bad enough to cause serious damage, while being subtle enough that you need some analytical thinking to understand the consequences until it's everywhere at once.

There would be almost no antivaxxer sentiment if it killed 20%, because everyone in an area with an outbreak would know someone who died, likely even have seen them sick.

Post reply on HN