Live data from Hacker News

Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

smithsonianmag.com

151–160 of 207 posts

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lest we all forget, the messaging coming out the the White House at the beginning was "masks are ineffective" If I recall correctly, at the onset of the covid pandemic the general guidance was to not rush to buy masks with the goal to prevent a supply crunch that would impact first-line responders. This guidance was quickly switched to a global recommendation to wear masks so to prevent and slow down how the diseas…

as someone who was wearing a respirator before the pandemic was even acknowledged by the government - The original CDC statement was something like "masks have not been shown to be effective for the general population". It was technically correct, but if you weren't reading defensively you'd come away with the impression they were stating a negative suggestion rather than the null suggestion (ie nothing). So despite…

> The original CDC statement was something like "masks have not been shown to be effective for the general population".

It's preferable that we have the timeline in mind.

https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd...

One key aspect of the initial guidances regarding facial masks were based on the assumption that covid was not easily transmissible, which was proven to be false. Once that fact was acknowledged, the whole world pivoted towards widespread adoption of masks and lockdowns to hinder spread.

> It was definitely a black mark on the CDC response (...)

To be fair, the initial criticism towards mask adoption were based on what little they knew then. As the pandemic progressed and observations in somewhat controlled environments started to trickle in, the focus shifted to prevent a supply crunch that affected first responders. I recall that there was also a period where health officials admitted masks were effectice, but regular people would only wear them wrong thus they wouldn't work, which was also dropped.

What matters to keep in mind is that this adaptation took place in a timespan of a couple of weeks at these start of the pandemic. Thus, it's not possible to use this to justify any anti-mask and anti-prevention militancy.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#152
post #72
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sent in riot police to clear out peaceful protesters in June 2020 so the president could have a photo-op, it's nothing new. The US population wanted this.

Not the same. They stormed a restaurant during business hours, arrested the entire staff regardless of paperwork, then flash banged all the patrons. Yes the patrons did start pushing back but they were literally there eating food prior to ICE showing up.

I suspect the number of people who felt that firing tear gas at protesters in Washington was OK and people in a restaurant isn't OK is very small.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as someone who was wearing a respirator before the pandemic was even acknowledged by the government - The original CDC statement was something like "masks have not been shown to be effective for the general population". It was technically correct, but if you weren't reading defensively you'd come away with the impression they were stating a negative suggestion rather than the null suggestion (ie nothing). So despite…

> The original CDC statement was something like "masks have not been shown to be effective for the general population". It's preferable that we have the timeline in mind. https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-07-27/timeline-cd... One key aspect of the initial guidances regarding facial masks were based on the assumption that covid was not easily transmissible, which was proven to be false. Once that fact was ack…

The problem is the difference between stating:

"masks have not been shown to be effective for the general population"

and something like:

"we do not know if masks are effective"

What was said was readily misinterpreted as "masks have ... been shown to [not] be effective for the general population", especially by a science-illiterate population reading with a non-individualist perspective. Whereas the second directly acknowledges the lack of understanding in an evolving situation.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When Americans were “resisting authority” by not wearing masks and keeping their businesses opened despite lockdown orders did you feel the same pride in anti-authority behavior then? From an outsider's perspective, it's hard to see the people with a militant attitude against basic health and higiene measures as other than narcisist authoritarian fools, who believed their personal whims naturally took priority over…

The point wasn't really to compare these two situations directly. Personally, (and you can read through my post history if you'd like) I've been a staunch advocate of COVID-19 vaccines (and any vaccine really) and also of wearing masks as appropriate, but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much as those who are…

> (...) but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much (...)

This is simply not true. At face value that's the literal claims the typical covid karens blurbed, but the common thread was always cynicism towards others in attempts to antagonize and outright assault anyone who didn't complied with their demands. Those who value personal freedom wouldn't assault passer-bys for using masks and practicing social distancing, nor would they single out service workers for the audacity of enforcing basic higiene and safety precautions.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are a couple decades behind the times. The current Republican party doesn't share those values any more. The current conservative movement is all in on monarchy, not what you are proposing. Look at Moldbug/Yarvin for their current philosophy.

>I think you are a couple decades behind the times. Not at all, stop getting political commentary from reddit comments. Bush, Romney, McCain were all in the past two decades. >The current conservative movement is all in on monarchy, not what you are proposing. Look at Moldbug/Yarvin for their current philosophy. The current Republican party's platform follows classical liberalism: "Classical liberalism is a political…

That was the pre-Trump GOP. The current version of the GOP is basically a different party with the same name.

Notably none of the free market stuff is part of their current platform.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#156
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there? They seem only distinguishable aesthetically to me. They’re much closer to each other than UK’s Tories and Labour, for sure.

There are a lot of similarities when it comes to their tendency towards Corporatocracy and military spending, but it largely ends there. When it comes to taxes, fiscal priorities, rights for individuals, foreign policy, crime and punishment, and of course social issues they are very different and in most cases take the opposite approach. For example, Republicans want lower taxes for the wealthy while Democrats want l…

> Republicans want to restrict individuals rights

This is a curious comment. HackerNews has always told me it was in fact the opposite - it's easy enough to source quotes from over the years. Could this forum have been wrong all this time?

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Modern conservatism grew out of authoritarian monarchist philosophers Not in the US. Modern conservatism in the US is tied to the individualistic self-reliance movement that rejects the concept of rulers at the top in favor of States' rights and local governance. It is classically liberal with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. You…

I think you are a couple decades behind the times. The current Republican party doesn't share those values any more. The current conservative movement is all in on monarchy, not what you are proposing. Look at Moldbug/Yarvin for their current philosophy.

The Republican party hasn't been conservative for some time.

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#158
post #65
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the point of wearing a mask is mostly to protect vulnerable people, and to slow the spread of a disease. These protests are also about protecting vulnerable people. And, I would argue, to slow the spread of a disease.

Lest we all forget, the messaging coming out the the White House at the beginning was "masks are ineffective"

This is actually a perfect example of the difficulty of scientific communication to a large audience. You need to communicate concise easy to understand guidance about complex topics. Asking “are masks effective” isn’t a simple question and the answer is, it depends. The first part is “effective at what task”, the second is “to what extent”, third is “in what situation”, fourth is “with what risks and tradeoffs”. I’ll be talking about the non-N95 masks unless specifically stated, to avoid any confusion.

Masks are not very effective at preventing an uninfected person from contracting Covid when in proximity to someone infected with Covid. The masks do not form a seal around the mouth and nose, allowing significant amounts of air around the mask when breathing in, as well as not being able to prevent being infected through the eyes. They do provide some protection, including possibly reducing the severity of the infection if contracted while wearing the mask, but that is not their primary benefit.

Mask are effective at preventing the spread from an infected person (either asymptomatic or symptomatic) to others. Breathing out directly into a mask allows the material to catch and trap the majority of the virus carrying condensation, and what gets out around or through the mask is slowed down significantly, allowing the droplets to be pulled down by gravity before traveling as significant distance (or fog up your glasses). Especially when combined with social distancing, this is very effective at prevent the spread of the virus. This is the masks primary benefit and is effective when there is large scale adoption, so that people that have the virus but are not aware, don’t unknowingly pass it. Its effectiveness comes as an aggregate effect similar to herd immunity, rather than an individual effect, since the vast majority of transmission comes from people unaware they are carriers.

Mask come with risks. People tend to touch their face more while wearing masks, and contracting the virus by touching your face is a primary infection mode. People tend to relax other more effective protection methods when wearing a mask, both unconsciously and due to a false belief in the protective capabilities of a mask.

So, in March we had a situation where we were running a shortage of masks. We had people wearing masks (either homemade or surgical) because they believed the mask provided good protection from contracting the virus, which is not true, and may cause people to engage in risky behavior that would put them and others at more risk. We also didn’t have enough masks to be used for their actual benefit of “herd immunity”. The assessment was that non sick people wearing masks was likely to put the individual at greater risk, and deplete the resource from places it was needed, without providing a medical benefit to the individual greater than the risks. In March, the average non sick person should not be wearing a mask.

After several months, we had a situation where we did not have a shortage of masks. We had a situation where the public has been educated through awareness campaigns on how masks work, like the “My mask protects you. Your mask protects me” campaign, so people are less likely to use the masks incorrectly and put themselves and others at greater risk. The assessment is that high compliance of mask wearing will have a greater positive effect through “herd immunity” to outweigh the risks and tradeoffs. But make no mistake, the risks are still there. In that case, the average non sick person should be wearing a mask.

If you don’t understand the underlying medical complexities of the situation, it seems like they can’t both be true. And when an expert organization is trying to provide a clear, short, easy to understand list of recommendations from analyzing and evaluating all those data, they can’t go into to a 45 min presentation every time. Dr. Fauci even tried to add context in March. He talked about how the masks don’t provide protection in the way people think they do, how it can cause people to put themselves at greater risk, both through a false sense of protection and other behaviors like face touching, and how masks primarily protect you from infecting others, not the other way around. If you go back and look at his quotes at the time, he consistently tries to bring that additional context into it, but since it is a complex issue of competing risks and benefits, it’s hard to convey how masks can be good in some cases and bad in others.

> Dr. Fauci in March 2020. “When we get in a situation where we have enough masks, I believe there will be some very serious consideration about more broadening this recommendation of using masks. We're not there yet, but I think we're close to coming to some determination. Because if, in fact, a person who may or may not be infected wants to prevent infecting someone else, one of the best ways to do that is with a mask, so perhaps that's the way to go.” [1]

> And of course his 60 Minutes interview. “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.”

[1] https://www.axios.com/anthony-fauci-masks-coronavirus-f77c30...

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point wasn't really to compare these two situations directly. Personally, (and you can read through my post history if you'd like) I've been a staunch advocate of COVID-19 vaccines (and any vaccine really) and also of wearing masks as appropriate, but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much as those who are…

> (...) but those who believed at the time that vaccine mandates were draconian government overreach literally believed they were freedom fighters just as much (...) This is simply not true. At face value that's the literal claims the typical covid karens blurbed, but the common thread was always cynicism towards others in attempts to antagonize and outright assault anyone who didn't complied with their demands. Thos…

"Not true" according to who? They sure seemed serious to me.

I think you are having difficulty separating your personal opinion of those folks with assessing what they believed and how they acted. You can make the same argument about the rioters in Los Angelas today [1].

"Those who value XYZ wouldn't take ABC action"

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5340553-los-angeles...

Re: Defiant loyalists paid dearly for choosing wrong side in the American Revolution

#160
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. The Overton window is so incredibly small in America that normal, run of the mill political positions - either left or right - in the rest of the world are deemed extremist and radical in America. Your Corporate media is the problem.

The problem is not media, at least not primarily. The problem is an ancient and not-democratic first past the post system, preventing emergence of any alternative, good or bad.

I agree with your sentiment, but Canada uses FPTP and as much as I would love to move to a proportional system, our politics is significantly less limiting than yours. Both of your major parties, and all of your corporate media are so captured by billionaires you don't even know how bad things are in your country without an external frame of reference.
Post reply on HN