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

Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

forklog.media

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#71

Post by wila »

seeTheAstroturf wrote: post #20

Death rates are at 0.5%, and it was worth shutting down the economy. Car accident death rates are at 1%. Wait until people hear about that. The bigger shock is when people realize that you can't stop the spread of a pandemic. You can flatten the curve to help hospitals. But soon we will find hospitals are more dangerous than staying at home due to infections and that respirators barely improve your chance of survival…

Chances of getting a car accident this year do not equal the chances of getting the virus within the same year.

Aka comparing the two makes no sense.

According to [1] in 2018 there was about 11 deaths per 100,000. So that's 0.011% instead of 1%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#72

Post by Mc_Big_G »

kyuudou wrote: post #51

Dr. Michael J. Burry, M.D. (Vanderbilt) , setup a twitter account[1] just to address some of the negative consequences of overreacting to covid-19. He's not normally a social media type, to say the least. [1] https://twitter.com/michaeljburry

We really need to stop putting so much faith in someone's opinion because they have "Dr." in front of their name. It turns out "smart" people can be incredibly stupid and/or mislead by their own prejudices and political leanings.

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#73

Post by kyuudou »

__s wrote: post #66
altcognito wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah he’s pitching that California has already reached herd immunity. The premise is that covid-19 arrived in fall and that unlike everywhere else in the world, it arrived, spread without so much as being noticed at the ER.

To clarify why that's a crazy premise: Italy

I'd say it's a bit disingenuous comparing Italy with California demographically - we're talking about one of the largest population per capita of elderly who are well-known for living with multiple generations on the same property if not the same household AND who have traditional body language mannerisms that involve lots of hand-to-face and lips-to-face contact. Bit less of all that in Cali.

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#74

Post by ozim »

zabana wrote: post #46
ozim wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not even that good as a number guy... Current global stats as I write are: 1446242 confirmed, 83424 deaths which in my calculator is giving 5% not 0,5%

keyword here is confirmed. Many of us carry the virus and are untested (or "unconfirmed") so that 5% number is likely to massively decrease to around 0.5% at some point if (second keyword), governments decide to implement large scale testing.

I am going with train of thought were tested and confirmed were tested because they had high chance of getting virus. You don't test people who had no chance of getting a virus so I don't think those numbers are that much higher.

Second thing is that testing already was increased in a lot of places but last 2 days new cases number did not grow it stayed around the same.

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#75

Post by saalweachter »

seeTheAstroturf wrote: post #59
simion314 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you assume that yourself are the number guy and know better, so what is the equation that will determine when lockdown is more efficient? what are the inputs in that equation ? Why car deaths would be a factor in why you should implement a lockdown. If you go to a hospital with a illness X would you like a response like "X kills less then cars in our country, until traffic laws are fixed we decided you can suffer…

I think it's fair to do death vs death. Especially if Corona disproportionately affects people who have lived 60+ years already. Car deaths affect people of all ages. The economic collapse and scare has caused people to cancel or delay surgeries, dental work, physical therapy, buy newer and safer cars, home abuse has gone up, I imagine exercise has gone down, I wonder how alcohol use has changed. You can quantify the…

> You can quantify these with numbers.

You can!

Using the age statistics from NY and the Social Security actuarial tables, we're currently losing something like 11.75-17.1 years of life per death, depending on whether you weight towards the life expectancy at the beginning or end of each age bracket. The current update to the "dialysis standard" for the value of a YoQL is $129,000, so we're currently losing $1.5-2.2 million per death.

If the true fatality rate is 0.66% (https://www.livescience.com/death-rate-lower-than-estimates....), and 70% of the population would catch it if it is not contained before "herd immunity" is reached, that would put the total number of expected deaths in the US at around 1.52 million. If we're expected something like 100-200 thousand people to die even with the measures currently being taken, then we're averting 1.4 million deaths and that amounts to a savings of about $2-3 trillion worth of human life.

If $2-3 trillion is suspiciously similar to the magnitude being thrown around for various "coronavirus relief bills", well, it's probably only a little bit of a coincidence.

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#77

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Mc_Big_G wrote: post #72
kyuudou wrote: post #51

Dr. Michael J. Burry, M.D. (Vanderbilt) , setup a twitter account[1] just to address some of the negative consequences of overreacting to covid-19. He's not normally a social media type, to say the least. [1] https://twitter.com/michaeljburry

We really need to stop putting so much faith in someone's opinion because they have "Dr." in front of their name. It turns out "smart" people can be incredibly stupid and/or mislead by their own prejudices and political leanings.

> It turns out "smart" people can be incredibly stupid and/or mislead by their own prejudices and political leanings.

If I had a nickle for every time I read "senior software engineer at X" in a profile that was spewing ideological drivel I wouldn't need to work for a living.

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#78

Post by RandyRanderson »

RandyRanderson wrote: post #76

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." [0] https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rahm_emanuel_409199

Provenance: https://freakonomics.com/2009/08/13/quotes-uncovered-who-sai...

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#79

Post by simion314 »

seeTheAstroturf wrote: post #68
simion314 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why cars? It would make sense if you are an extreme capitalist to put money in the equation, how much a life costs, how much lockdown costs, how much it costs to find a cure, how much it costs to let everyone sick die but it would make no sense to bring cars into this, think about it your calculation would be different depending on the country or state, like if you are in the country with horible driving bad luck…

Because we will always drive cars, and in 5 years there will be no coronavirus. Would it have been better to spend our resources on more complex airbag systems that would last as long as humans drive or a lockdown to save our oldest population for 3 years? I think this math problem is easier than we would like, but politically it's unpopular.

Let's assume cars kill N people a month, and the next pandemic kill N-1 old people a month and cancer kills N-2 people a month. We do nothing until we solve the cars? What if it kills N-1 children we still do nothing?

I do not see the argument that the resources should go to cars, if you want to solve car accidents you can do it for free, I have the secrets here:

- don't give a diving license that easy. have decent tests

- if you are caught drunk you should never drive again

- if you are caught looking at a phone screen your license is gone for 10 years

- if you are speeding your license is gone for 10 years

- test the cars every 2 years to check they are safe and not polluting

- analyze the crashes find the causes and address them, if speeding is the issue find a way to enforce speed limits.

Do you have any evidence that if the lockdown did not have happened more lives would have been saved? Ironically probably less people died in car accidents so you need to find some domain where the number of deaths increased more then the lives saved,

Re: Governments Introduce Surveillance Under Veil of Coronavirus Control

#80

Post by tenebrisalietum »

m3chars wrote: post #56

In pop culture people turn into zombies by contact with a virus. Zombies don't think of themselves as idiots, probably because they lost their brains in the process, so actually they don't think at all, they just mumble "ARRRRHHHHG" "ORRRRRSSSSFFFF" and go after other peoples brains. Now this is a sad comment, using the deaths of other people to make a point, but since we're talking about facts I'll go ahead. -- http…

> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

We know the quote already. It's not doing any good to post it or repeat it. Simply saying this in response to complex problems is equivalent to saying "Thoughts and prayers" when someone is asking for help. It doesn't help and only makes you feel good.

People are willing to give up a lot for convenience, including sending many jobs to China. We allow this due to laissez-faire capitalism. Turns out people care more about cheap shit than the job prospects of their children.

People are also trained/willing to give up a lot for fear. This is caused in part by the very freedoms enshrined by your quote - there's a lot of fear and misinformation spread and allowed to spread because of the principle of free speech.

The situation is more complex and needs a more complex response than simply saying "hurr durr liberty".

Post reply on HN