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

Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 381 posts

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#281

Post by piker »

ruggeri wrote: post #194
theli0nheart wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is textbook ad hominem, and I think is against HN guidelines.

The comment above is a little mean, but I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease. When I am a non-expert in a complicated subject, I want the advice of experts. When I go to my general practitioner, I want to know they have a certificate that says they went to medical school. When I need open-heart surgery, I want to know the doctor is a c…

> I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease

If the purpose of such a note is to attack the validity of the author's position, this is what ad hominem means.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#282

Post by piker »

cgriswald wrote: post #209
dragonwriter wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing against someone's position by simply stating (truthfully or not) that they are not an expert is textbook ad hominem .

"He wants you to believe that green is the best color of M & M, but his business went bankrupt," is an ad hominem argument. "He trains parakeets, so I don't find him a credible source of dog behavior" is not.

"He trains parakeets, so you should not believe his position that the dog salivates because the bell rings" is.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#283

Post by jdminhbg »

acdha wrote: post #280
jdminhbg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in that case, you're willing to say that under current conditions in the US, mask wearing and restrictions on things like dining are pointless, right? If "lockdown" can only be expected to produce results in its strongest form and we can't do that, that seems like the logical conclusion.

That’s like saying that failing to stop your car before you crash means you shouldn’t bother braking at all. Masks have repeatedly been shown to work, indoor dining has repeatedly been shown to be high risk in addition to being an optional luxury, and there’s no world in which we want more spread even if we’d prefer less.

It’s not like saying that, because nobody has claimed that crashing into another car at 5 mph is the same as crashing into it at 60. When you claim that only “hard lockdowns” (and note the circular reasoning inherent) can have the measurable effects claimed ahead of time, that’s what you’re saying.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#284

Post by jdminhbg »

simonh wrote: post #277
jdminhbg wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in that case, you're willing to say that under current conditions in the US, mask wearing and restrictions on things like dining are pointless, right? If "lockdown" can only be expected to produce results in its strongest form and we can't do that, that seems like the logical conclusion.

Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile. The experience from the Spanish Flu, which seems to have similar overall lethality, is instructive. Many developed countries managed to lock down to some extent and keep the…

> Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile.

Great, so we agree that at any given level of lockdown, we should see some kind of marginal benefit vs less lockdown, right? So it does in fact make sense to compare outcomes between California, New York, and Florida?

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#285

Post by jfengel »

teachrdan wrote: post #218
bhupy wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the point of Op-Ed sections, at the end of the day? It's always been a way for newspapers to host what's effectively a glorified collection of Medium posts. Even the New York Times' Opinion page is consistently partisan.

"Op-Ed" literally means "Opposite the editorial page." It's a place in the newspaper specifically reserved for opinion, not news. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

Huh. I'd always assumed it meant "opinions/editorials". But numerous reliable sources confirm what the Wikipedia page says. Nifty. Thanks.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#286

Post by sixstringtheory »

steveBK123 wrote: post #212

WSJ Opinion page, known for such classics as “There won’t be a second wave - Mike Pence” in June (which mysteriously all the links I find to it are returning 503 now hmm)

First google result worked for me: https://www.wsj.com/articles/there-isnt-a-coronavirus-second...

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#287

Post by acdha »

sparrish wrote: post #276
acdha wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly: that’s not because we suddenly hit herd immunity globally but because isolation masks are effective ways to stop respiratory illnesses.

I'm confused by your reply. So masks are helping stop the spread of the flu but not Covid?

No, they’re effective on both. My point was that relying on herd immunity will never work again influenza but it responded sharply to the same measures helping reduce COVID cases.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#288

Post by simonh »

jdminhbg wrote: post #284
simonh wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile. The experience from the Spanish Flu, which seems to have similar overall lethality, is instructive. Many developed countries managed to lock down to some extent and keep the…

> Any improvement over nothing is worth having. Just because the large number of lockdown deniers make the kinds of lockdowns seen elsewhere in the developed world impossible, doesn’t mean the level of compliance that is possible isn’t worthwhile. Great, so we agree that at any given level of lockdown, we should see some kind of marginal benefit vs less lockdown, right? So it does in fact make sense to compare outcom…

It makes sense given the level of actual compliance with lockdown restrictions yes. It's the behaviour that matters not the rules. As I said previously and we seem to agree, rates of compliance in the US generally are relatively low and that varies even within the US. Demographics is an issue, for example California has several very large low income urban sprawls where lockdown compliance was minimal.

I'm making no moral judgement here, people are under severe hardship and we all have to make our decisions on our own circumstances, but it is what it is. What we do also has an impact on others.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#289

Post by jfengel »

piker wrote: post #281
ruggeri wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment above is a little mean, but I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease. When I am a non-expert in a complicated subject, I want the advice of experts. When I go to my general practitioner, I want to know they have a certificate that says they went to medical school. When I need open-heart surgery, I want to know the doctor is a c…

> I don't think it's ad hominem to note the author's lack of specific qualification in epidemiology or infectious disease If the purpose of such a note is to attack the validity of the author's position, this is what ad hominem means.

The only reason we're discussing this author's opinion is because they appear in a prestigious newspaper. The world is full of opinions, and we choose some to discuss based on heuristics.

The appearance of this article on HN is effectively an argument from authority -- the newspaper's, not the author's. Without that, we wouldn't even be talking about it. Undercutting their arguments is time consuming, but pointing out that they don't have the background to be making their claims -- and that they're appearing on an editorial page famous for putting politics over facts -- is sufficient for many people to say, "Let's stop considering this and go talk about something else."

Those who want to continue the argument may, of course. But meeting an argument from authority with the exact opposite argument (truthful, but ad hominem) is a convenient shortcut for those who don't want to get sucked into that.

Re: Opinion: We’ll Have Herd Immunity by April

#290

Post by N1H1L »

simplicio wrote: post #116
burlesona wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty weird actually. The news desk for the WSJ is among the best out there. Their news stories tend to be really dry in a good way - full of facts and figures, with very little in the way of click bait hyperbole. Their subscriber model is all about business people who want the details and not opinion... Which then makes the opinion desk at the WSJ a real oddball. It's consistently right-leaning, sometimes to t…

The weirdest part is this leads to frequent items where the Op-Ed page makes factual claims that are directly contradicted by the news section in the same issue.

The recent opinion section, no less by the Editorial Board, at WSJ claimed that focusing on renewable energy sources led to the Texas power cuts [1].

While the paper, on the same day itself, reported the opposite [2].

Links: 1) https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deep-green-freeze-11613411002... 2) https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-freeze-power-grid-failure...

Post reply on HN