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

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

#311

Post by Mirioron » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:35 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #257

keiferski wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said in the original comment: > Not every solution to a serious problem needs to be some surveillance state dystopian nightmare. The authoritarian response of shutting everything down, locking people in their homes and instituting all-but-in-name-martial law seems like a massive lack of creativity to me. Plagues are not a new phenomenon. We can come up with better solutions - as Taiwan and Singapore seem to be d…

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

Yes it is. Science advances one funeral at a time. The most scientifically reasonable thing can still be wrong. If an authority forces everyone to do the same, then everyone would be wrong. And this is all assuming that there is zero corruption at play, which is unlikely.

Everyone should do the scientifically proven swab test every morning. The test has very strict requirements that were created by politicians and industry professionals working together! As it happens, only one company creates a rigorous enough test to fit the criteria. Thus every test is bought from said company. Is the test actually any good? Of course! Who has ever heard about bs being published as science before?

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

#312

Post by dmwallin » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:37 PM UTC

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…

I think the social signal part has second order effects that make it work out not as you would expect.

If ONLY sick people tend to wear masks then masks will make you a more visible target of fear and hate, which would lead people who are sick to not wear masks.

It's a much better idea to destigmatize the act of mask wearing so we can get larger coverage of sick people with mask s.

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

#313

Post by lolc » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

kerng wrote: post #281

lolc wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mask not only keeps airborne droplets in, or out. It keeps the wearer from touching mouth and nose involuntarily. This helps protect against smear infections! I noticed this when I was wearing one during a flu infection. My fingers were frequently surprised to touch the mask instead of my face, and I went "oh, right, don't do that!"

It's interesting how much different, and even opposing information is floating around. Just the other day I read an article that said masks are bad because you will and need to touch your face more often... Regardless, most reputable source for advice is probably from WHO, even though my gut feel/logic would tell me otherwise.

Most objections to masks are simply made up to justify not having to wear one. That claim is also not backed up by anything but a gut feeling, mind you :-)

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

#314

Post by keiferski » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #306

keiferski wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assure you, no one buying a pregnancy test wants an anonymous corporation or the government to be informed of the results. This has nothing to do with technological feasibility and everything to do with privacy concerns.

Your definition of reasonable seems to be pretty warped. The historical abuses of "this opinion is reasonable and scientific" are too heinous and numerous to even list. Thankfully we have (but still need more) consumer privacy laws.

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

#315

Post by Mirioron » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #255

knolax wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that most normal human beings require social interaction with others to maintain mental health. Solitary confinement is considered torture by many for a reason. In addition, digital forms of social interaction are obviously not subsitutes for physical interaction, especially considering the harmful effects social media and dating apps already have on mental health. I definitely wouldn't want to li…

Social interaction doesn't require breathing the same air. Internet is wonderful place of bustling social interaction. I'm doing way more social interaction with you just by writing this comment than I usually do by going outside and apparently Zuckerberg has no say in it. Solitary confinement is a torture not because of the solitary part. It's because of the boredom part. How unpleasent do you think would be solitar…

It's not the same thing though. We know that there are chemical responses for things such as touch and other physical interactions. You don't get that online. It's a vastly different thing.

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

#316

Post by unlinked_dll » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

mcsb4 wrote: post #85

I don't understand why we are not trying to interrupt the transmission vectors with masks and hand sanitizer like the Chinese do. They ramped the daily production from 10M to 100M and even advised the use of make-shift masks. The reaction in the west: masks are not protecting 100% and also we don't have any and we are too lazy to produce them, although they are much cheaper than the economic impact covid-19 has. 1. y…

I don't understand why we're relying on governments to do this for us. Ethanol is not difficult to make at home and we can do it ourselves (I just don't want to share methods because it's questionably legal in my state/kinda dangerous to do with an open flame).

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

#317

Post by TheCoelacanth » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

pas wrote: post #282

MisterTea wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding stupid, why hasn't anyone been talking about making makeshift masks using clothing or cloth? There's plenty of that in everyone's home. What about a scarf? Fine, it's not N95 but it can't be any less effective than a simple surgical mask that does blocks spittle.

A scarf (and other soft cloths) sounds problematic, because it traps droplets and then gives them more time to get into your airways. Though it probably helps with someone coughing at you directly. (But you have to instantly remove the scarf, and should wear glasses too, and then remove that too, and then wash your face, then the glasses and then the scarf.)

The masks are to stop you from infecting other people, not to stop you from getting infected.

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

#318

Post by scotty79 » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #314

scotty79 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assure you, no one buying a pregnancy test wants an anonymous corporation or the government to be informed of the results. This has nothing to do with technological feasibility and everything to do with privacy concerns. Your definition of reasonable seems to be pretty warped. The historical abuses of "this opinion is reasonable and scientific" are too heinous and numerous to even list. Thankfully we have (but stil…

No ones wants it. And yet if it comes out positive and you visit the doctor to confirm, it is known to an anonymous corporation, sometimes multiple, and government, if it cares. And everybody is perfectly fine with that.

Historical abuses are vast and many in all the fields of human culture. Proportionally to the power of given part of the culture. Abuses don't automatically make given thing completely worthless. Historical abuses are just things that we need to be on the lookout for.

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

#319

Post by Mirioron » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #186

majewsky wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly does cutting down the number of shampoo brands help fix the Coronavirus crisis? Even if you go from 1000 shampoo variants to maybe a dozen, the amount of shampoo that's produced does not change significantly. The only effect this is going to have is discrimination against minorities with special needs. I have atopic dermatitis and need to buy shampoo at the pharmacy for absurd prices because the regular s…

I don't think the 'I must have argan oil and lime caviar in my next shampoo because the advert says so' need is qualitatively the same as your clinical need though is it? If anything I'd say that indicates the failure of unrestricted markets. This all started with black_puppydog's comment: > I don't agree with the conclusion. We can scale down our economies and still maintain production of essentials by ``drumroll``…

Maybe not shampoo, but some people can't seem to stand certain types of toothpaste with sodium lauryl sulfate in it. It apartment aggregates canker sores in their mouth. Those are most of the types of toothpastes you can buy. If you cut out almost all toothpaste products you'd likely eliminate the ones without this substance. We might think of this specific point when selecting the types of toothpaste that we will allow, but how many other such niches will we miss on all the other products?

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

#320

Post by DoreenMichele » Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #296

DoreenMichele wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting the entire world work from home and interact only over the internet for the rest of our lives? No, of course not. But some people who are especially vulnerable can work from home permanently. We can permanently crack down on things like cashiers licking their fingers to help them open bags. I have a compromised immune system. The gross behavior of cashiers is one of my single biggest headaches in l…

> We can... [big list of good ideas] Those all sound like good ideas[1]. But exactly how will those affect the R0 of the virus if we all keep going to the pub, and the club, and church, and the office, and schools, and concerts, and sporting events? Particularly if we ride the bus and the tube and trains and airplanes to get there? Fundamentally, not enough to keep it from saturating the population at least once. And…

Passive solar design relies on things like absorbing heat from the sun and storing the heat in structures with thermal mass instead of burning fuel and forcing air flow to try to heat the home.

It actually results in a more comfortable home and higher quality of life. It's more environmentally friendly. It's more sustainable. And it doesn't actively promote sick building syndrome.

Please note that Legionnaire's Disease was originally transmitted by the air conditioning system where it was growing. I hate forced air heat with a passion.

I currently live in a hundred year old building with a radiator in my unit and it's a huge improvement over most living arrangements I've ever had.

Normalcy:

For someone in the 1800s, there's absolutely nothing normal about airplane flights, much less for ordinary individuals. There's nothing normal about computers. There's nothing normal about the internet.

These things are all basically magic for someone from 150 years ago and we take it all for granted and feel like our lives are being utterly ruined if someone suggests we should maybe curtail our use.

I have a form of cystic fibrosis. I've made a lot of the changes I'm talking about.

I'm a social creature. I would love to have a "normal" life. The way I live didn't come naturally at all. It was a shotgun wedding.

But it was better than the way I had and I am no longer in constant, excruciating pain and I'm no longer on boat loads of drugs and I generally sleep better, I'm more productive and I'm happier.

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the world's worship of some arbitrary concept of normal. Life routinely adapts or dies.

The people telling me that making permanent changes to our current lifestyle in order to not die is some unthinkable and harsh burden may well be among the dead in the near future. And the ones who remain can choose to adapt or die in the next round.

It doesn't much matter to me. I already live the life of a germaphobe thanks to my genetic disorder. And I long ago gave up on ever being taken seriously, cared about, etc. So I have enough anger, bitterness and baggage over the past decade of being treated terribly by the world at large that I will be perfectly happy to see some folks go and I've got a mental list of "Hey, universe, maybe you can make sure Coronavirus gets these people soon. Thanks."

But go ahead and cling desperately to your ideas about some "normal" life and how amazingly important that is. Maybe someone will mourn the loss of people doing that. But it won't be me.

You have a good day. This is probably not a conversation worth pursuing.