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

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#261

Post by imgabe »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #249
imgabe wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you've already gotten the shot, you're protected from the disease. So, what is someone else not getting the shot going to do to you?

This ^. If the shots are truly protective, I don't understand what the hubbub is all about. Is it really all about protecting those who truly can't get the shot for whatever reason? I doubt it.

And if you can still transmit the disease even after getting the shot, then it doesn't protect those people anyway. They will still have to exercise whatever caution is necessary to protect themselves, which they would have to do anyway, because there are other diseases as well.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#262

Post by jodrellblank »

cesaref wrote: post #112
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans set for it. > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop anthropogenic climate change something else wi…

I'd suggest you dig out and read a copy of James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis. It's obviously all new age whackery, but the more you read about it the more sense you'll see in it. Definitely worth tracking down.

In what way is it new age whackery? In his book Novacene he describes it non-mystically; a planet with two kinds of daisy. As the planet cools, the dark petalled daisy thrives and absorbs light and radiates heat into the atmosphere. The atmosphere warms. The dark daisy doesn't do so well in warmth, the pale daisy thrives. It reflects sunlight before it can be turned to heat. The planet cools. The dark daisy blooms. The daisys adjust the planetary environment and temperature through feedback loops, not through new-age whackery or Mother Nature/deity intelligent planning.

He comments that such a thing happens on Earth and that if we were looking at Earth from outside, we would think it uninhabited because it is too close to the Sun to be in the Goldilocks Zone and appears too hot, radiating too much heat - but it's the radiating of all that heat which is what keeps Earth cool enough for life.

(And that it's the feedback systems which are old, inflexible and stretching past their limits which is going to cause life problems with overheating).

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#263

Post by tshaddox »

pdonis wrote: post #258
tshaddox wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. Right, but the quote I was questioning seemed to indicate that this principle should be applied in cases where no one knows or perhaps even there is no way to know what the purpose is or even in there is one. That’s a much stronger claim than Chesterton’s fence, because a fence is…

> You should investigate all the normal reasons a fence would be there, and if no extant reason turns up, tear down the fence No, you should give up the idea that you can justify tearing down the fence by any intellectual investigation. If you really believe it would be better if the fence came down, then you need to work to convince everyone who has an interest in the fence to agree with you. If you succeed, then th…

I think you’re conflating multiple things here. As far as I know, Chesterton’s fence is not about anything like property rights. We’re not talking about justifying entering your neighbor’s land and tearing down their fence without permission. Presumably the analogy is a fence on some land you’ve just acquired, or a fence on public lands. The debate isn’t about whether you have the right to unilaterally tear down a fence, it’s about whether it’s a good idea for the fence to be removed.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#264

Post by jiggawatts »

the_doctah wrote: post #174
guidoism wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less about making those people safe and more about making you safe by making those other not spread the disease to you. For example: Go ahead and drive drunk, I don’t care, just do it on your private property so you don’t kill me. Similarly: Go and don’t get vaxed, honestly I don’t care. But viruses don’t respect borders like cars do, so if you are going to do it then make sure you are isolated on a private island wh…

Vaccines don't prevent spread of Covid.

They do reduce it, by a lot, enough to avoid overwhelming hospitals -- which are borderline right now in many countries and being filled up by anti-vaxxers. Those freedom loving people are taking up valuable beds, putting the lives of people at risk that have other medical issues.

Essentially, all of these anti-vax arguments boil down to: "You cannot definitively, absolutely, completely prove that the vaccines are 100.00% effective AND 100.00% safe for everyone always. I mean sure, you're not technically forcing me to take it, but your suggestion that I do my duty to society is too authoritarian. I would prefer to think of myself as a universe onto myself and take the personal chance of death comparable to climbing Mount Everest or driving F1 cars. Because freedom! Or something..."

Also: "Grandma can take her chances with getting COVID from me on the odd occasion that I visit her in the cheapest hospice I could find to offload her onto."

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#265

Post by ClumsyPilot »

WalterBright wrote: post #231
danblick wrote: post #83

The author presents the idea that "you may be born into a culture with social practices that you don't understand but that work for your benefit; they may work better if you don't understand them!" I find this idea a little repellant, but it's something Friedrich Hayek wrote about too. (In my mind Hayek is the person most associated with distributed knowledge.) ~"You may not understand the forces that have led societ…

Similarly, nobody understands the free market. (This is likely why there's so much interest in socialism, as the mind yearns for order and predictability.) Yet the free market works well despite this lack of understanding, and even contempt, of it.

"the free market works well"

Unless there is too much inflation like in Weimar Republic, too much corruption like in Russia, too much monopoly like with Standard Oil, too many shenanigans leading to 2008-style meltdown (imagine that without central bank support), given working police and the justice system which is missing in many developing countries, given basic infrastructure like roads and electricity etc, etc.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#266

Post by JimTheMan »

taejavu wrote: post #120
yongjik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until the last paragraph. If "smugly" insisting X would make them dig in their heels, what are we supposed to do? Say "Oh of course it's totally in your rights, please send your unvaccinated children to the same school my kids go to"? Because I don't think it will change their minds either. What happened to "personal responsibility" that these people like so much? If the whole country tells these people to…

[flagged]

They lower your chance of getting covid by about 50% if exposed and lower your chance of spreading it if you get it by about 50%.

So.. It's not perfect at stopping transmission but you can see how it would definitely reduce the R0 enough to prevent outbreaks in the non-vaccinate pops.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#267

Post by pdonis »

bwestergard wrote: post #244
BurningFrog wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ask a difficult and important question. The two relevant ideas I know are: 1. Chesterton's Fence: "I don't understand why this exists, so let's tear it down" is an big and tempting error. Wait until you understand. 2. Consequences of societal change are inherently unknowable, which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy. The sane approach is to change society incrementally, see what happens, and adjust and lea…

"which is why revolutions usually end in tragedy" A more judicious takeaway might be that revolutions often have tragic periods. The French revolution had its blood-soaked Terror and Thermidor, lead to the Napoleonic wars in which many perished, etc. But it also liberated millions, spread an ideal of democracy and human rights cherished by much of the world today. The U.S. Civil War and Reconstruction were in every s…

Your rosy view of the historical consequences of the French Revolution is, to say the least, questionable. I would say the main historical consequence of the French Revolution has been a lot of other revolutions which had even more tragic consequences (up to and including the ones in the 20th century that led to more than a hundred million deaths), while rosy language about "liberation" and "democracy" kept people from learning the obvious lesson that maybe revolutions just aren't a good idea.

As for the Civil War, the U.S. had to spend a million lives in that war to end slavery. (And, as you appear to recognize, that still didn't really improve the lives of the former slaves all that much--more than a century of Jim Crow was still to come.) The British Empire did it without spending any lives at all, and has never had the kind of Jim Crow issues the U.S. has had. So what is the advantage of revolution, again?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#268

Post by csours »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #242

This reminds me of CEO-speak. A CEO cannot speak their true mind or their true assessment of a situation. They can't say "wow we're in trouble here" because then people will jump ship and then the company will be even more in trouble (and the CEO would get sued for breaching Fiduciary Duty) What a CEO says is merely wishful thinking for a goal they want people to follow. They can never speak their true plan. (And of…

That was surprisingly intense!

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#269

Post by TimTheTinker »

imgabe wrote: post #261
TimTheTinker wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ^. If the shots are truly protective, I don't understand what the hubbub is all about. Is it really all about protecting those who truly can't get the shot for whatever reason? I doubt it.

And if you can still transmit the disease even after getting the shot, then it doesn't protect those people anyway. They will still have to exercise whatever caution is necessary to protect themselves, which they would have to do anyway, because there are other diseases as well.

Yeah, it's a partial measure that carries no guarantees... which makes it a poor candidate for a fix to roll out to everyone, in my opinion.

It doesn't make sense to me why officials aren't focusing just on getting as close to 100% as possible of the vulnerable vaccinated. It's well known that surviving covid is a much better protection, and thus contributes more to herd immunity, than the mRNA shot+boosters.

Perhaps "following the money" can provide answers? A vaccine mandate is a great way of making a lot of money for some people...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#270

Post by ClumsyPilot »

nickpp wrote: post #255
WalterBright wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, nobody understands the free market. (This is likely why there's so much interest in socialism, as the mind yearns for order and predictability.) Yet the free market works well despite this lack of understanding, and even contempt, of it.

I believe the free market is like Darwinism for economic organisms: unintuitive and little understood by the regular folk, however working just fine nevertheless and able to solve and explain any issue without needing the intervention of an intelligent designer/regulator. People will still look for a planner though…

While you are admiring Darwinism, keep in mind that all-natural ecosystem collapse is a thing, and 6 all-natural mass extinction events had >90% of all living things disappear.
Post reply on HN