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

New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#91

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

op03 wrote: post #90
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you're saying. It's very important to send positive messages: we'll get through this, we'll soon have enough medical capacity to treat everyone who falls sick, we've weathered worse crises in the past and this one won't be the one that beats us. I try to do that and encourage other people to do it. But it also needs to be made clear to people who propose to build a dystopian society that this is not…

First part is good. Second part of "needs to be made clear" is where you will run into issues. We have this need to get everyone to agree with our views. But firstly it's not important to get things done and secondly it's not possible because of the variety of different needs and personality traits in the population. It's a possible approach only on Putin or Xi planet . But it breaksdown in democracies (esp given the…

It's intended as an ultimatum and a demand. At some point we have to shift from calming people to fighting back; we can't wait until soldiers are in the streets to say that months of martial law is unacceptable.

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#92

Post by amylene »

danharaj wrote: post #84
amylene wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that flat earthers reject objective evidence. This is someone disagreeing over projections about the future. And, to be frank, nobody has a fucking clue how to estimate the medium term effects of this.

If nobody has a fucking clue then anyone who is certain that the economy will recover in 2 months is either deluded or bullshitting themselves. But we do know certainly that we will only be hitting the peak of infections sometime in April in states that were much more proactive than the median. It is extremely unlike that things will clear up, say, by Easter. Those who are so optimistic are innumerate and don't under…

Yes, certainty in future economic projections is delusional, but it’s a delusion that is well received by society. Humans prefer confidence over competence, and abhor uncertainty. Right now, we have a lot of uncertainty.

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#93

Post by amylene »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #77
amylene wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Super interesting, thanks for replying! So you are aware that your estimate is biased because of your other beliefs, but you don’t try to fix that? Mind if I ask why?

Sorry, no, I may have been unclear. I don't know that my estimate is biased - I believe I've properly adjusted for my other beliefs and desires - but I can't know for sure I adjusted correctly so it would be misleading for me to present an estimate as though I'm a dispassionate observer.

Our best guesses are the best we can do. Are you familiar with the research around the bias bias? Or the fact that smart people tend to be more subject to biases?

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#94

Post by amylene »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #78
amylene wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deaths would also worsen an economic depression. Why does everybody forget about this? Also, an economic depression reduces air pollution which would reduce deaths. There are lots of factors that would need to be considered. Most people I’ve seen advocating this pov are stopping at the first order analysis.

Because most people who don't advocate the POV are stopping at the zeroth order analysis, saying that you're a heartless killer if you want to consider any factors instead of just saving lives.

I can’t correct other peoples flawed thinking. But I can avoid reacting to it when that reaction makes my thinking worse.

Just because someone does something I don’t like doesn’t mean I should base my viewpoint around rejecting theirs.

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#95

Post by amylene »

leesalminen wrote: post #79
amylene wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deaths would also worsen an economic depression. Why does everybody forget about this? Also, an economic depression reduces air pollution which would reduce deaths. There are lots of factors that would need to be considered. Most people I’ve seen advocating this pov are stopping at the first order analysis.

> Also, an economic depression reduces air pollution which would reduce deaths. In the immediate term, sure. In the medium term an economic depression would weaken investment, research & development in new green technologies which would increase deaths as the effects of climate change worsen.

Or, it could spur some necessity is the mother of invention innovation for deployment.

Or a million other things could happen.

I am asking that you change your “would” to “could” to properly reflect the uncertainty.

We have a tendency to want to convince people of our views, which gets in the way of making our views more correct. This is challenging to fight, but necessary to learn.

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#96

Post by bawolff »

bob33212 wrote: post #80
bawolff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? From first principles there is no reason why anyone should think that their won't be 2 billion vaccines tomorrow (perhaps via divine intervention). Heck, from first principles I'm not even sure Australia exists (Maybe Australia is a giant hoax. After all, i have never been there.) Proving things from first principles is really hard. The fact you weren't able to disprove a statement from first principles is not s…

Sorry, I don't believe in a magical skyman as a first principal.

Well you can of course take anything you want as a first principle, this is kind of an odd choice. Typically people take as first principles foundational things they believe to be true but know they can't prove. Things like, our memory reflects things that happened in the past or other people exist as real people and aren't just complex NPC.

Most atheists believe that there is no reasonable evidence for a deity, thus it makes no sense to believe in one (or some varation of that). In particular they believe this conclusion is rational and can be arrived at through reasoning. Taking "there is no deities" as a first principle, is in essense taking a view about religion on just "faith". My understanding is that to most atheists, this sort of appeal to faith is an anathema.

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#97

Post by [deleted] »

amylene wrote: post #95
leesalminen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, an economic depression reduces air pollution which would reduce deaths. In the immediate term, sure. In the medium term an economic depression would weaken investment, research & development in new green technologies which would increase deaths as the effects of climate change worsen.

Or, it could spur some necessity is the mother of invention innovation for deployment. Or a million other things could happen. I am asking that you change your “would” to “could” to properly reflect the uncertainty. We have a tendency to want to convince people of our views, which gets in the way of making our views more correct. This is challenging to fight, but necessary to learn.

[deleted]

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#98

Post by op03 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #91
op03 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First part is good. Second part of "needs to be made clear" is where you will run into issues. We have this need to get everyone to agree with our views. But firstly it's not important to get things done and secondly it's not possible because of the variety of different needs and personality traits in the population. It's a possible approach only on Putin or Xi planet . But it breaksdown in democracies (esp given the…

It's intended as an ultimatum and a demand. At some point we have to shift from calming people to fighting back; we can't wait until soldiers are in the streets to say that months of martial law is unacceptable.

Protecting your interests (economic, freedom or whatever else) sounds like your goal. Ultimatums are the route you are choosing to get there.

And the point to remember is ultimatums work when you have established authority and power over everyone else ala Xi, Putin etc.

In democracies it doesn't work because power is distributed. To force the political/judicial/business/military/intelligence/religious/social/media circles in all parts of the country to all bend over is probably the most complicated route to choose to get to your goal.

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#99

Post by dang »

shahbaby wrote: post #42

Fuck China. If Iran had intentionally spread this virus the way CCP has done, there would already be war but because it came from China, here we are worried about being called racist. It's quite jarring when you compare this to how the world reacted after 9/11. When I hear people say things like "China bought the world time" it's infuriating. The CCP needs to pay.

Using HN for nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again.

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

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: New restrictions in Hong Kong show that a single lockdown won’t be enough

#100

Post by dang »

cactus2093 wrote: post #50
alexandercrohde wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if there's a resurgence I'm not participating. The cure would be worse than the disease. I encourage susceptible populations to quarantine themselves, rather than everybody quarantining. We must work, date, and life must go on.

And this is why we need police or national guard to enforce lockdowns. And to charge people spreading the virus with felony murder and manslaughter charges, like they seem to be doing in extreme cases in Italy. I’ve seen some toxic comments on this site before, but nothing like someone blatantly saying “I’ll happy kill those around me to avoid any inconvenience to my daily routine”.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Other users have replied to that comment in keeping with the guidelines, but your post here breaks them—for example:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

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

Post reply on HN