Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings • Hacker News Board

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#331

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #324

ceejayoz wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not. That was not intended as a comparison , but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.

You can call it whatever you want, but you're using the analogy to make an argument, and the analogy is extreme.

The analogy is intended to demonstrate that the implied claim that "'my body, my choice' must extend to everything or it's hypocritical" is extreme.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#332

Post by timr » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

tshaddox wrote: post #320

timr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire subthread is in response to just such a comparison: "Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun." And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.

Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.

I know it's not the same commenter.

If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here, you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#333

Post by goalieca » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

antientropic wrote: post #323

tasuki wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, most of the "high-risk" people in care homes would easily risk their life to visit their relatives for the holidays. The two options are: - Go for it, you have guaranteed quality time with family and (unknown) risk of dying. - Stay isolated, guaranteed miserable time alone, then you die anyway a bit later. I'm not surprised at their choices. We should not be optimizing for length of life at the cost…

An example of a false dichotomy if ever there was one. In reality there is a whole continuum of options, such as reducing the number of relatives you visit, or not visiting them at the height of a wave of infections. And of course "you die anyway a bit later" isn't true, with a vaccine on the way.

To be blunt, people in long term care homes don’t have a long time to live. A couple of years and often under declining health.

> 65% died within 1 year of nursing home admission

> 53% died within 6 months of nursing home admission

https://www.geripal.org/2010/08/length-of-stay-in-nursing-ho...

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#334

Post by flubert » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

Is anyone in the U.S. using thermal cameras to spot individuals with a fever? I live in a smaller city, not really close to a big metropolitan area, but I haven't seen a thermal camera in use yet. I see they are available on Amazon, so it doesn't seem like it is an issue of availability. Are these being used by businesses in other areas of the U.S.? Seems like it would be a no-brainer to use these to non-invasivly screen patrons.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#335

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #332

tshaddox wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.

I know it's not the same commenter. If you're going to argue that gun homicide and drunk driving are examples that should also be followed here , you are making the analogy between catching a virus and those examples.

Yes, the analogy is being made, and the scope of the analogy is clearly that "my body, my choice" does not apply to either thing.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#336

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #331

timr wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can call it whatever you want, but you're using the analogy to make an argument, and the analogy is extreme.

The analogy is intended to demonstrate that the implied claim that "'my body, my choice' must extend to everything or it's hypocritical" is extreme.

[deleted]

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#337

Post by 3JPLW » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:25 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #198

vbordo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misapplication of an ideological statement about abortion. Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives.

"Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives." ...which isn't different than any other year. Every year, the flu kills tens of thousands (in the US -- higher worldwide). Disproportionately children. Every year, driving kills hundreds of thousands, even when you exclude the effects of alcohol. Every year, people have sex withou…

I'm not "free" to ignore stop signs, stop lights, and speed limits. They impact my freedom to drive as I'd wish -- because otherwise I might hurt you.

I'm not "free" to start cooking commercially out of my home kitchen without inspections and licensing. This impacts my ability to earn an income -- because otherwise I might make you sick.

It's public health risk mitigation. We do it all the time.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#338

Post by dang » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 7:35 PM UTC

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #239

robhunter wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads as the equivalent of an ad hominem argument - why not address your concerns with the merits of what was said, rather than just dismiss it as propaganda?

The same link has been posted several times in this thread by several accounts, all in a similar manner. Several days ago there was another COVID19 posting with "FREE MICHIGAN" and similar bizarre, anti-intellectual ramblings. Unfortunately HackerNews/YCombinator is the one controlling the identities on this website, so without access to more information I'm unable to discern much about the authorship of these commen…

That's why the site guidelines specifically ask people not to post accusations of astroturfing or brigading without evidence:

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Users are overwhelmingly (as in, thousands of times) too quick to assume organized malice as an explanation for material that they don't like appearing on the internet. This is a symptom of how divided society is on divisive topics. People disagree, but they don't believe that the disagreements are legitimate. For a site like HN, accusations like what you posted are much more toxic than the problem you're complaining about. There's tons of past explanation here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Before anyone comes out with "dang says astroturfing doesn't exist"—no, the point is that there are two problems: real astroturfing, and imaginary internet accusations about it. Anyone assuming only the former is making a huge mistake. So what's the solution? Obviously we have to try to distinguish between the one and the other based on some sort of objective evidence. It's not enough to dislike someone else's view on a difficult topic like Covid and then say "brigading!"

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#339

Post by RationalThought » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 8:01 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #191

RationalThought wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - it's people like you. Humans are more than a statistic - and you putting high-risk in scare-marks and asking if politicians asking us to wear a fucking mask and social distance are the problem is exactly the kind of selfish thinking that made this pandemic so bad. Some in this thread seem to think we need to let people die. High risk includes kids. It includes software-engineers who are in their 20s. It isn't ju…

> High risk includes kids. It includes software-engineers who are in their 20s. This is false.

So kids don't have cancer. Or asthma. Or immune compromising diseases? Neither do 20 somethings apparently.

Denying reality doesn't make you right. It makes you a fucking troll.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#340

Post by RationalThought » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 8:03 PM UTC

wins32767 wrote: post #178

ceejayoz wrote: post #5

It also demonstrates why the "personal choice" stuff is BS here. I see a lot of folks going "why are you worried if you're following the rules yourself?", and yet... > None of the victims who lost their lives had attended the party.

I hope some enterprising lawyer starts filing wrongful death civil suits for people who do not follow mask and gathering rules. With sequencing of the virus, plus some contact tracing it should be possible to make a preponderance of evidence case for a subset of deaths. That should hopefully provide a stick to get a large number of defectors (in game theory terms) to stop defecting. A political solution would clearly…

I do too. Reading the comments here there are plenty who don't care about others enough to take basic precautions, and happily spread lies about the effects of covid-19 or who is vulnerable.

I expect there will also be social penalties. The world isn't going to forget the people who chose not to take basic steps to protect each other. It's a violation of the social contract, and that comes with consequences.