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

“I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 373 posts

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#301

Post by notacoward »

michaelt wrote: post #291
notacoward wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exhibiting exactly the kind of non-science-based attitude I was talking about. Droplets, oh no, run away! Let's say you're unknowingly infected, like all of those people who were hanging out at bars as though they're invulnerable this weekend. So you have virus on your skin already. Are you more likely to pass it on to others via surfaces if your skin is bare or if you put a glove on it? The answer's pretty ob…

> The answer's pretty obvious. It's not particularly obvious to me how gloves are all that different to hand-washing. In both cases, your hands are disease-free until you touch something that isn't disease-free.

> It's not particularly obvious to me how gloves are all that different to hand-washing.

Only in the sense that hand-washing is more effective. In fact, most recommendations to use gloves also recommend hand-washing immediately after removal. However, it's not practical to wash hands every few minutes, literally hundreds of times a day. Gloves can provide protection between less frequent washings.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#302

Post by lolc »

sokoloff wrote: post #237
lolc wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, it's common for people to just call in and stay home for the day when they are sick. They don't need to game a device or convince a doctor. There is some trust. Maybe this could be tried elswhere?

When the money comes from the employer, there is incentive to root out and eliminate significant fraud. When the money comes from the sky/government, there is much less. We have a nice wooden fence that was (properly) built around/over the roots of a city-owner tree. The city later removed the tree and the fence now looked dumb where it had been trimmed around the roots. A neighbor stopped by and advised me that I sh…

The money actually comes from the employer. Employers are obliged to keep paying until the sickness is over. (The details are complicated, but this guarantee generally lasts two years from onset.) Employers have insurance against longer episodes but short-term they usually eat the cost directly. It's in the budget.

When employers suspect employees of fraud they will investigate. They can ask for a sick note but most do so only after a few days. Three days is customary. When a case is handed over to insurance, the insurance company will tend to involve its own doctors to assess the claim.

I don't understand the meaning of your story.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#303

Post by notacoward »

simiones wrote: post #298
notacoward wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exhibiting exactly the kind of non-science-based attitude I was talking about. Droplets, oh no, run away! Let's say you're unknowingly infected, like all of those people who were hanging out at bars as though they're invulnerable this weekend. So you have virus on your skin already. Are you more likely to pass it on to others via surfaces if your skin is bare or if you put a glove on it? The answer's pretty ob…

> people touch their faces less often with gloves on Is that true? I would assume people usually touch their faces because something itches or to adjust glasses/hair/a mask. I would expect gloves to have a minimal impact on this compared to just paying attention to never touching your face. I am open to seeing numbers on this, but don't know where to look for any. > every time you change gloves the probability drops…

Simple thought experiment: you're about to be in a situation where, despite any efforts to the contrary, you expect to be in contact with a hundred other people. It's not that uncommon e.g. in retail. Would you prefer that to be skin to skin, or glove to glove? Would you literally bet your own life and others' on that "entirely useless" claim, or would you take that cheap and basic precaution?

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#304

Post by DCKing »

scotty79 wrote: post #300
DCKing wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many people on HN believe that the US armed forces underpin peace. But that's your soapboxing, and not what I was trying to say or even my opinion. The utter dominance of America's armed forces has achieved extraordinary peace and prosperity since World War II, since its dominance has prevented numerous smaller scale conflicts or new world wars. Me saying this isn't trying to diminish the terrible suffe…

US military dominates in expenses only and gear money can buy. When it comes to successful military actions recent conflicts don't show this dominance. Does USA really prevented more wars since WWII than they caused?

> Does USA really prevented more wars since WWII than they caused?

Absolutely. This is not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of historians and geopolitical experts. And moreover, it has historical precedent. The Roman Empire's dominance also ushered in a period of peace and prosperity, coining the original term Pax Romana.

It might be a hard view to accept while having background knowledge of the suffering caused by US armed forces, and the stupidity and crimes committed. But that's just a lack of imagination of how much worse it could have been, and how much worse it was before WWII ended.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#305

Post by notacoward »

ncallaway wrote: post #290
simiones wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does wearing a glove really achieve? You can't get the virus through direct skin contact, so virus living on your skin is not going to infect you. Touching your face while you have virus on your skin is how you get infected, and touching other surfaces while your hand is dirty is how you help spread the infection. Both of these work just as well if the virus lives on a glove rather than your skin. So no, gloves…

> So no, gloves are entirely useless for protection from this kind of virus. Gloves, even if they do nothing else, act as a strong reminder not to touch your face. Breaking that habit alone can strongly reduce your risk of transmission.

Also to change them (and/or wash your hands) if you touch your face anyway, or forget and sneeze/cough into your hands, etc. They're often brightly colored to reinforce this "reminder" function. They certainly don't have to be. Pretty sure their natural color would be off-white or grey.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#306

Post by scotty79 »

keiferski wrote: post #263
scotty79 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authority is not authoritarian if it tries to make you do the most scientifically reasonable thing.

Probably the best thing a woman can do upon discovering that she is pregnant is to see a doctor. Under your argument, it would be ‘scientifically reasonable’ for pregnancy tests to automatically track your name, age, and location, and then send your results to your doctor. Obviously this is a massive violation of privacy...which is exactly the same issue.

Yes. It would. It doesn't not because of sacred privacy, just because technology is not there. Currently tracking is too much of a burden to do at test level and introducing it would harm usage.

But when you go to the doctor to confirm pregnancy you can be sure you'll be tracked, because it's easy and it's reasonable thing to do.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#307

Post by scotty79 »

Scarblac wrote: post #267
scotty79 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the usual trend is for viruses to mutate in a less dangerous direction. This trend is for viruses that are in danger of killing their hosts before spreading. This coronavirus is so infectious that it's nowhere near that. Hence it can even mutate into more lethal form without risking its ability to spread.

This virus is so bad that it is making whole countries take quarantine measures. That's probably not optimal for spreading itself.

Evolution doesn't care directly about spreading. Just about survival and this virus is currently at no danger of being eradicated by measures in effect.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#308

Post by Scarblac »

scotty79 wrote: post #307
Scarblac wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This virus is so bad that it is making whole countries take quarantine measures. That's probably not optimal for spreading itself.

Evolution doesn't care directly about spreading. Just about survival and this virus is currently at no danger of being eradicated by measures in effect.

More spreading means more survival. A virus that we could reasonably live with would have more surviving copies than this one.

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#309

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

giantDinosaur wrote: post #238
tasogare wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP doesn't advocate anti-militarism, it's advocate to keep army at home. This is two very different things. A country can keep a top-notch army while not invading another country every decade. Japan is the best example of that, with its use of military largely restricted by the constitution.

You don't actually know if your military is 'top notch' unless it engages frequently in combat. One might like to think you're as good as your last war, but it's impossible to really tell without conflict. Everything else is just various feel-good metrics and games.

An unfortunate truth that not many like to acknowledge. An untested military is much like an untested backup tape or emergency generator for a datacenter. Is it going to do what you need it to do when you need it...?

Re: “I'm not sure there is an acceptable solution to the problem we are facing”

#310

Post by tasuki »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #293
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the virus just dies on non-live surfaces like clothes in a couple of hours. Like we said several times, masks provide some protection (decreased risk) for a healthy person, they don't protect from getting infected 100%. No one ever said that mask is more effective on healthy person than on the infected one, I am not sure who you are arguing against. But it is the popular for some reason notion that a mask do…

The difference in effectiveness is huge, to the point where it's ridiculous to be healthy and wear a mask. Like I said, they don't put masks on surgery patients. And don't forget the social signal part; if everyone wears a mask all the time, then we don't know who actually considers themselves to be infectious. Whereas if just the infectious people wear masks, then we know who they are and can act appropriately (bein…

> The difference in effectiveness is huge, to the point where it's ridiculous to be healthy and wear a mask.

I think the point is that you have no idea whether you're healthy.

Post reply on HN