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

431–440 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#431

Post by vineyardmike »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #269
imgabe wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's well known that surviving covid is a much better protection,

Getting sick sucks though. Especially when people get "long covid" that doesn't ever go away.

> Perhaps "following the money" can provide answers?

Perhaps the answer is not a secret conspiracy but a rational, human desire to protect people.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#432

Post by skinkestek »

Regarding number 3, I should probably be in the same place since I hang around here and have had a bit of both biology and astronomy and astrophysics in school, except 2 things:

- Besides it being massively useful[1] I've experienced too many weird coincidences now. So many that I cannot in good faith say I think it is just placebo or just survivorship bias.

- Recently I have also realized that if I were to leave my religion and believe in Big Bang as the sole explanation that would also be a belief. Just because it is now as common as Catholicism once was doesn't mean it isn't also a set of more or less fundamentally unprovable beliefs.

Do I recommend it to others?

Well. I don't recommend hasting into something. Definitely not letting others use it to assume power of your life.

But if anyone experience the same as I did, that life just doesn't work, yes, my life has massively improved, and if you wonder how to start, ask the $deity of your tradition in private and say you are seriously interested. If that doesn't work try mine (I just asked "God" in the language of my childhood.)

[1]: A framework for delaying gratification is massively useful. Also I married someone with a long history of the same belief and there are so many problems I don't have to worry about.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#433

Post by TimTheTinker »

Ensorceled wrote: post #342
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.

The shots are NOT truly protective. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine has an effectiveness of about 91%. That means in about 9% of cases it is not protective. I'm amazed we are this deep into this pandemic and people still have black and white thinking wrt to vaccinces.

91% is truly protective, as long as that effectiveness lasts long enough to be meaningful.

In fact, 91% is an amazingly high number - I don't know if any pre-mRNA vaccine has ever reached that level of effectiveness.

So I return to my original point -- if they're really that effective, why the hubbub?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#434

Post by andi999 »

timy2shoes wrote: post #333
AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, can you clarify what you mean by you lost the game?

The game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)

Ahhh. I lost, but will make sure my family will win. Ipcontentfilter='...'

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#435

Post by TimTheTinker »

vineyardmike wrote: post #429
imgabe wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know all that. I can fully accept that the vaccine doesn’t make me invulnerable. I have the vaccine and am fully prepared to go back to living my normal life while accepting that I still have some risk. I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. Dying f…

> I don’t think that forcing other people to get vaccinated further reduces the risk to me (which is already very low). It objectively does... the hospital capacity risk, the risk of variants spreading among the unvaxed, or the breakthrough cases. > At least, it doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to offset the costs of removing freedom. That is an opinion not all agree with. > Dying from Covid is more or less option…

What about people who have already survived Covid?

Studies are pretty clear that they're somewhat more immune than folks who've had the shot.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#436

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#437

Post by TimTheTinker »

vineyardmike wrote: post #431
TimTheTinker wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it's well known that surviving covid is a much better protection, Getting sick sucks though. Especially when people get "long covid" that doesn't ever go away. > Perhaps "following the money" can provide answers? Perhaps the answer is not a secret conspiracy but a rational, human desire to protect people.

> Getting sick sucks though.

Yeah, but that's really up to me, isn't it? There's a reason I choose not to live in China, Laos, or Vietnam.

Now that the vaccine is so widely available: (a) health officials should drop all orders and regulations, and (b) hospitals ought to say "look, here's our COVID capacity; if we're full we can't serve you, sorry" -- with that capacity set at a reasonable, sustainable number for them.

... unless the shot isn't what they say it is in terms of effectiveness or safety. But if it is really that effective and safe, I don't see any reason not to implement (a) and (b).

> Perhaps the answer is not a secret conspiracy but a rational, human desire to protect people.

That's not what I see when people's basic human rights and freedoms are being removed. People in Australia are being kept in freakin' internment camps.

When a 91+% effectiveness shot is available for free to everyone, the bar of rationally protecting people has been more than cleared. This doesn't appear to be about that anymore.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#438

Post by afro88 »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #109
mjlawson wrote: post #39

This reminds me of a set of poems, Knots, by R.D. Laing, the first of which goes: > They are playing a game > They are playing, at not playing a game > If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. > I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. It's a lovely collection, and though I haven't thought about it recently, I think there's a lot of value in considering these kinds…

I lost the game.

Not until I read your message, ugh

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#439

Post by timoth3y »

ren_engineer wrote: post #204
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…

>You may not understand the forces that have led society to be organized the way that it is, but you should respect that sometimes the order of things reflects knowledge you may not have sounds like Chesterton's fence to some degree https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence >In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will p…

Hayek was talking about something more fundamental. There are countless of beliefs and behaviors we have to accept and internalize before we can even talk about changing a fence. "What is a fence? Can people respect access to property? Why can people own property? Why should we respect a fence?"

For the most part we do so unconsciously and unquestioningly.

We could not function in society if we stopped to question everything. Society is far too complex for any one person to understand "all of it."

The only reason society works at all is because we all tacitly agree to follow most of the rules without question. It's only when we shine a spotlight on a particular rule that we thin about it at all.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#440

Post by drewcoo »

codeisawesome wrote: post #407
csours wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good form is protective, the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time. Is there any particular reason a woman cannot lead a prayer? Is there any particular reason why we exchange work for money? Is there any particular reason why not to eat pigs? For each of those, the answer may be yes or no depending on your time and place. The reason yes or the reason no may also be different.

> the bad form just normalizes something that is common at the time. Exactly. I think there should be a blanket negative to customs, practices or systems that objectively cause harm. It would be reprehensible to see someone try to defend, say, Female Genital Mutilation… using “Chesterton’s Fence”. Just don’t fucking do it to people; stop doing it right now, the “why” might be for anthropologists to ponder at a later…

Chesterton liked to be restricted, as his own adoption of Catholicism instead of looser Anglican faith attested. He also liked to restrict others, as with his abominable fence that we can't move or even stop talking about long after he's dead. I'm not philosophy kink shaming but it's just not right without consent.
Post reply on HN