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

A university president makes a case against cowardice

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#101

Post by n4r9 »

CaptWillard wrote: post #87
maplant wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

about 7 million people died of COVID according to the WHO: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths

AFAIK, that number more accurately reflects the number of people who died within two weeks of testing positive using PCR tests at high Ct values (35-45), inflating case counts. 94-95% involved at least one comorbidity. Over 75% had at least four comorbidities.

From further down the page:

> A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between illness and death

It does not include cases like someone dying in a car crash who happened to be COVID-positive.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#102

Post by ty6853 »

rimunroe wrote: post #96
ty6853 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps so but I ultimately use data I collected to make my own choices in my own environment, not to force choices upon you. If you had different data I would not judge you for acting differently.

No one exists alone in a society. People who ignored the overwhelming evidence of the pandemic’s severity were more likely to spread the disease to other people because of their poor judgement.

The evidence being peddled by our state health director at the time to justify lock downs was largely computerized projections that were not based on overwhelming evidence and were ultimately wildly wrong even without vaccines.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#103

Post by n4r9 »

somenameforme wrote: post #98
rimunroe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think the rough death toll of pandemics are fundamentally unknowable to some approximation? Do you think the massive increase in mortality during the pandemic was a coincidence?

Interestingly, excess mortality levels continue to remain extremely high - around 10%. [1] [1] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores...

Might some of that be due to long-term medical conditions (such as cancer or dementia) that were treated less effectively during the pandemic, but which didn't cause immediate loss of life?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#104

Post by rimunroe »

somenameforme wrote: post #75
rimunroe wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines were a miracle. The state medical examiner converted one nearby university’s arena to a temporary morgue at one point in 2020. It’s mind boggling that people were and still are in denial about how bad it got before large parts of the population started getting vaccinated

Look at the timeline of literally any plague, as they all follow a very similar pattern. For instance here [1] is the one for the Spanish Flu. There are a number of peaks and valleys that gradually recess to noise as viruses tend to evolve to less virulent forms while people also simultaneously develop broader immunity. This makes observational data highly unreliable for determining the efficacy of a vaccine during a…

> These biases and trends are facts most people may not be aware of, but big pharma certainly is.

I have a hard time believing that “most people” also means “most epidemiologists” or “most medical organizations” would be unaware of such an obvious problem. It seems like it would be day one of school stuff.

It seems trivially obvious to me, someone whose closest qualification to being able to debate the actual science here is having a bachelor’s in physics and very technically being involved in some academic research. I’m not going to second guess the overwhelming majority of scientists and medical professionals I’ve heard comment on this because of something like that.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#105

Post by westurner »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #84
ty6853 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just make a flat tax for everyone and end all the special interest pandering and exceptions for the rich. It is a poisonous misapplication of the time of our government to constantly be fiddling with tax code to favor one group or another.

Because a lot of people, including many economists, believe capital accumulating endlessly to the same class of thousand-ish people is bad. A flat income tax exacerbates wealth inequality considerably.

I don't want to work for a business created by, uh, upper class folks that wouldn't have done it if not for temporary tax breaks by a pandering grifter executive.

I believe in a strong middle class and upward mobility for all.

I don't think we want businesses that are dependent on war, hate, fear, and division for continued profitability.

I don't know whether a flat or a regressive or a progressive tax system is more fair or more total society optimal.

I suspect it is true that, Higher income individuals receive more total subsidies than lower-income individuals.

You don't want a job at a firm that an already-wealthy founder could only pull off due to short-term tax breaks and wouldn't have founded if taxes go any higher.

You want a job at a firm run by people who are going to keep solving for their mission regardless of high taxes due to immediately necessary war expenses, for example.

In the interests of long-term economic health and national security of the United States, I don't think they should be cutting science and medical research funding.

Science funding has positive returns. Science funding has greater returns than illegal wars (that still aren't paid for).

Find 1980 on these charts of tax receipts, GDP, and income inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43140500 :

> "Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

> "Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43220833 re: income inequality:

> GINI Index for the United States: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SIPOVGINIUSA

Find 1980 on a GINI index chart.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#106

Post by rimunroe »

ty6853 wrote: post #102
rimunroe wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one exists alone in a society. People who ignored the overwhelming evidence of the pandemic’s severity were more likely to spread the disease to other people because of their poor judgement.

The evidence being peddled by our state health director at the time to justify lock downs was largely computerized projections that were not based on overwhelming evidence and were ultimately wildly wrong even without vaccines.

Sorry, I’m not an expert in the field, but are computerized projections not the norm in disease spread modeling?

I don’t really feel like continuing this argument, so the last thing I’ll say is that I don’t know how else experts are supposed to have made decisions at the time. Makeshift morgues were opening to handle the overflow of bodies. They acted on the evidence they had at the time, and readjusted recommendations as new evidence came to light. This is part of why social distancing protocols changed so much during the first year of the pandemic.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#107

Post by epistasis »

CaptWillard wrote: post #13

[flagged]

> I don't remember dissent being tolerated, let alone encouraged.

How many people were jailed or disappeared for their dissent?

Being able to dissent doesn't mean that people accept your opinion, it means that you are allowed to make your point using your own means.

People still get to disagree with you, point out where you are dishonest or mistaken, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that dissent wasn't tolerated is absolute BS. It was tolerated far more than it should have been, far more accommodations were made than necessary, such as in the military, which injects people with all sorts of vaccines but somehow decided that this well-tested one didn't have to be because some people were scared.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#108

Post by rincebrain »

Thorrez wrote: post #76
rincebrain wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't, historically, the level of enormous potential negative consequences legally and practically if the universities talked back. Universities, like many institutions, have also become more like large incumbent businesses than previously - e.g. perpetuating their own existence over having strong core values.

Biden was considering withholding federal funds from schools over their vaccine policies[1], and tried to withhold federal funds from schools based on how they treat transgender students[2], but that was blocked by a judge. Obama did a similar thing regarding transgender students[3]. Things like this are why Hillsdale College rejects all federal funds. So they can do what they want without threat of the government re…

Sure, but my argument was not "the federal government has never done this", but that "colleges have usually felt secure that this would not be done to them if they defended student protests", or at least, if we're being cynical, "that they would have an opportunity to walk it back if their calculations were incorrect".

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#110

Post by TimorousBestie »

ty6853 wrote: post #94
TimorousBestie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot of people, including many economists, believe capital accumulating endlessly to the same class of thousand-ish people is bad. A flat income tax exacerbates wealth inequality considerably.

Our tax now is worse than flat. Warren buffet brags about paying less % than his secretary.

Either compare ideal tax structures with “no loopholes” (none of these exist in the real world) or compare actually-existing tax structures.

Comparing your ideal flat income tax with the current system is apples to oranges.

Post reply on HN