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

We’re Testing the Wrong People

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#141

Post by Marsymars »

bo1024 wrote: post #133
Marsymars wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the circumstances. I live alone and work from home, so there's very little difference for me between the current situation and an indefinite quarantine.

For anyone who exercises daily, there's a really big difference!

On a continuum from my usual daily activities (gym for lifting, climbing, ultimate, soccer) and my current activities (bodyweight exercises in my home and runs around my neighbourhood), I’m much closer to indefinite quarantine than I am to a normal state of affairs.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#142

Post by leereeves »

polygotdomain wrote: post #71

I think this article is getting things out of order. The question right now shouldn't be who to test, but rather how do we increase the volume of testing. The article states that we should be running 500k tests a day, as if we're not simply because we choose not too. Right now we don't have the capacity and so we can't scale up at all. Why don't we have the capacity? Well the complete lack of coordination and leaders…

Are the numbers at

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/coronavirus/

accurate? Because according to that, adding up the number of tests done by Italy, Spain, France, the UK, and Germany (a combined population roughly the same as the US), they've done about 5.6 million tests vs the USA's 4.4 million tests.

And we've done more tests per capita than South Korea.

Which really doesn't sound like we're doing that badly.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#143

Post by nv-vn »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #83
ajross wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the beginning there were some authorities (China, WHO) claiming there was no human-to-human transmission. I don't understand how this misconception persists. That is not what the WHO statement said. The statement was that the outbreak was not being sustained by community transmission, and that they believed (this was very early on) that the cases from the Wuhan market were all due to exposure to a single case or…

There is currently a big push to scapegoat the WHO as the cause of the pandemic.

There is also a big push by the WHO to censor anything critical of China

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#144

Post by throwaway2048 »

nv-vn wrote: post #143
throwaway2048 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is currently a big push to scapegoat the WHO as the cause of the pandemic.

There is also a big push by the WHO to censor anything critical of China

what power does the WHO have to "censor anything critical of China"

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#145

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

edmundsauto wrote: post #138
chasd00 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm both impressed and worried over the level of compliance from the American people. It's good that everyone is working together to "flatten the curve" however it's also worrisome how willing citizens are to do throw their rights out the window. I'm sure many politicians are rubbing their chins right now wondering if the rights of the people even matter anymore.

You are projecting that citizens are willing to throw their rights out the window. A more neutral perspective would be that people are willing to make sacrifices when they feel it's worth it. Also, people aren't "throwing their rights out the window" -- it's more like people are chilling them in the fridge for a small window of time. To prevent their friends, families, and countrymen from death. (Also, it's not clear…

It’s good idea to accept that the risk analysis of someone making 6 figures here is absolutely different than that of someone who is living paycheck to paycheck. This is why it’s been so frustrating to see “YOU’RE TRYING TO MURDER PEOPLE” from one side and “muh freedom” from the other. There is nuance of course.

I think it’s super interesting how differently this all looks to different people.

But I can’t think even during Spanish Flu that First Amendment rights were so heavily infringed - good reasons or not. Best I could find on the topic was the heavy fines for spitting in public in 1918.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#146

Post by leereeves »

tptacek wrote: post #132
leereeves wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is coronavirus will still be here in six months or two years. So if we agree that less restrictive measures will be in place in the future, I would ask why such measures aren't also sufficient today? I would argue that, given that this lockdown must end before we eliminate the virus, we should begin adapting and testing less restrictive measures as quickly as possible.

Your argument is specious. I said that the measures in place 2 years from now won't be the same as the ones we have now, not that things will simply be "less restrictive". Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The reason they aren't different now is that it takes time to adapt. The reason we don't simply reduce restrictions right now is that doing so will kill people.

Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity.

It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#147

Post by tptacek »

leereeves wrote: post #146
tptacek wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is specious. I said that the measures in place 2 years from now won't be the same as the ones we have now, not that things will simply be "less restrictive". Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The reason they aren't different now is that it takes time to adapt. The reason we don't simply reduce restrictions right now is that doing so will kill people.

Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.

Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#148

Post by leereeves »

tptacek wrote: post #147
leereeves wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.

Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the…

> if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything

And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted.

But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefully tailored and less restrictive, as required by strict scrutiny.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#149

Post by tptacek »

leereeves wrote: post #148
tptacek wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the…

> if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted. But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefu…

The subtext of your comment, that "strict scrutiny" requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power, doesn't match up with my understanding of how any of this works. The reality is that almost any reasonable thing that governments do to combat C19, perhaps excepting things that are demonstrably and deliberately not viewpoint neutral, are going to be allowed.

Re: We’re Testing the Wrong People

#150

Post by leereeves »

tptacek wrote: post #149
leereeves wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything And ironically, if it turns out the virus is less dangerous than previously believed, and we actually overreacted, it will also look like we overreacted. But I agree; I don't dispute the Constitutionality of the orders given in March, when nothing was known and it was wise to be prudent. Now, more is known and orders can be much more carefu…

The subtext of your comment, that "strict scrutiny" requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power, doesn't match up with my understanding of how any of this works. The reality is that almost any reasonable thing that governments do to combat C19, perhaps excepting things that are demonstrably and deliberately not viewpoint neutral, are going to be allowed.

> strict scrutiny requires fine-grained analysis of every application of state police power

That's what strict scrutiny means, but it's a very high standard that certainly doesn't apply to every case. As I understand it, it's more likely to be applied when fundamental rights are infringed, but I would never try to predict how the Court might rule on any particular case.

Post reply on HN