Plans you're not supposed to talk about • Hacker News Board

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#91

Post by jfrunyon » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #57

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

1% decrease doesn't diminish their size and political influence substantially, even of the disproportionate elderly population. Then only a fraction of the remainders that lose a loved one would re-evaluate, a large fraction of them would still be bounced back when they realize the other ideas "your group" inherits is even harder to accept as a personality trait. Most of them will inherit just enough to not think fur…

It's 1% of the whole population, but a much larger percentage of certain political ideologies.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#92

Post by jfrunyon » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #26

The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…

> I'm afraid we've completely forgotten to separate the means from the end goal.

I'm afraid we've completely forgotten "the ends don't justify the means". ;)

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#93

Post by vmception » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #49

63 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on that? There were definitely some parts I didn't understand or agree with, but the main idea seemed interesting.

In some cases it tried to make observations in an objective or granular way, while at the same time mixing in sweeping generalizations and hand waving, > You’re in love. > Critically, you get everyone to agree that it’s gauche to discuss the strategic logic of all this. I'm thinking no. Lots of people talk about the expense of marriage. Some go so far as to say "it's just a piece of paper". Everyone doesn't agree the…

I got something different out of both of your examples.

Its not that many people talk about the expense of marriage, its that people would invalidate the people who talk about the financial intertwining and folly of marriage as both a cultural institution or contract.

Just like you pointed out that only people in the religion of anti-religion are the ones who talk ad nauseum about it, instead of just being non-religious people.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#94

Post by johnchristopher » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

bsedlm wrote: post #58

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…

> the point I am trying to make (granted not very eloquently) starts out from this idea [1] that humans are kind of crazy, and that maybe this crazyness is what makes us so successful; so I put that too much safety may undo this crazyness, it puts it to sleep?

You are blurring the lines between taking a personal risk in one occasion at a specific time and taking the risk of not wearing a mask or washing hands or cooking meat every day all year long.

Craziness for the sake of craziness is just random trial and error.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#95

Post by MaxBarraclough » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #52

jollybean wrote: post #3

Like discovering the ancient concept of 'Public Communications' by accidental recourse of self aware rhetoric. Every single thing we do, if the public were to have access to the raw facts, it would cause 'outrage'. The entirely of leadership is putting the difficult facts into the difficult context and making the trade offs. We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certai…

> We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a dollar figure on it (i.e. triage) That's not how triage works. > similarly the fact we have $1200 'solutions' to COVID that could probably wipe it out without vaccines if we could get everyone the tech, but we can't 'afford' it, What is this mysterious cure? > or that masks do not protect yo…

> Masks don't really protect the wearer unless it's a properly fitted N95. They reduce the aerosol emitted which reduces the chances of transmitting it to other people. They protect a group of people if most wear them by limiting transmission.

Many people seem to respond to this with a line of thought akin to Why would I take on a minor inconvenience merely to help save the lives of other people? Surprisingly few seem to think I'd better get some N95 masks then. They've been in ready supply for months.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#96

Post by generalizations » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #86

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…

> At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty LOL okay I literally can't go any further than the first sentence. Very good much wow so projection. I like the document title, though. "Microsoft Word - Document1". Very classy.

Didn't even bother to read the citation for that statement?

> This has now been true for over a century, and as early as 1855 J. S. Mill could say (see my John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London and Chicago, 1951], p. 216) that "almost all the projects of social reformers of these days are really liberticide."

> I like the document title, though. "Microsoft Word - Document1". Very classy.

Textbook example of an ad homenim.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#97

Post by jollybean » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #52

jollybean wrote: post #3

Like discovering the ancient concept of 'Public Communications' by accidental recourse of self aware rhetoric. Every single thing we do, if the public were to have access to the raw facts, it would cause 'outrage'. The entirely of leadership is putting the difficult facts into the difficult context and making the trade offs. We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certai…

> We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certain point because we have to put a dollar figure on it (i.e. triage) That's not how triage works. > similarly the fact we have $1200 'solutions' to COVID that could probably wipe it out without vaccines if we could get everyone the tech, but we can't 'afford' it, What is this mysterious cure? > or that masks do not protect yo…

--- "That's not how triage works."

Triage: "the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties."

Seems exactly like triage.

--- "What is this mysterious cure?"

Monoclonal Antibodies are a very effective treatment that we would use almost ubiquitously were it not for the cost.

If they were $1 and easily administered, they are in some ways as effective as vaccines, and pragmatically 'could be the first order solution'

" there was a significant reduction in COVID-related hospitalization or death of 71.3% (1.3% vs. 4.6%; p70% effective, taken at onset of symptoms, is more protective than my current AZ vaccine.

But at $1200 ea. we can only use it in specialized scenarios.

FYI - 100% of 'Rich Americans' will have access to this if they contract COVID and want to take it - but only a minority of poor and middle class Americans will.

If the Media ever wanted to highlight this discrepancy, there might be a revolution, but it's not in anyone's best interest at this point, i.e. 'We Don't Talk About It'.

--- "Mask Protection Are a Known Fact"

No, it's not, in the minds of most people, and the specific facts are purposefully avoided in the interest in the simple, basic communication of: "Wear Your Mask" which is in the public interest.

My parents and everyone in my family get jitters if 'one person in vicinity' isn't wearing a proper mask, because their 'instinct' is more along the 'N95 belief'.

'One person without a mask' is along the lines of 'working in a smokey nihgtclub for a week'. While not good, it's probably not going to hurt you. If everyone worked in smoke-filled nightclubs, it wold cause harm for sure, just like if we all didn't wear masks, R0 would nudge up.

The 'Public Communication' on masks has definitely not been nuanced to the point wherein they spend time going into the details, and so the resulting 'common understanding' isn't perfectly consistent with reality.

And it gets much better:

Vaccines kill.

We knew this, and we have a better understanding of it now, but even the most 'transparent' Public Health communicators completely avoid the subject. The visceral impact of 'So and So Died from a Vaccine', even as we know that on the whole, the vaccines are effectively safe and we want people to take them, is just to much. A single anecdote of 'someone dying' is easily enough for anti-vaxxers to propagandize and misrepresent the materiality of risk.

Go ahead and try to get the 'hard data' on exactly where vaccines have materially caused death, good luck, it's hard to find. That is basically a level of 'transparency' that is basically a problem for the 'Public Good' and basically that information is actively suppressed. Maybe not 100% hidden, but absolutely suppressed i.e. 'We Don't Talk About It'

[1] https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-networ...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#98

Post by reducesuffering » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

You're the (US) government. You want to prevent deaths from Covid. Research keeps generally concluding that previous Covid infection natural immunity is roughly as good as vaccine induced. You realize if you message this to the public and allow equality to vax-passes, never-vax people will be incentivized to now try and get covid so they can be restriction-less without being vaxxed, further spreading covid. You decide not to message this, leaving some astute researchers perplexed.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#99

Post by Noumenon72 » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #71

I keep my tax plans secret. A) Because I paid alot for the CPAs, tax lawyers, private letter rulings and case law. B) Actually talking about it to those struggling with taxes would result in them noticing they can't participate any more than driving to the neighboring municipality for cheaper gas tax, instead of anything more convenient, and could result in the tax laws changing from their widespread annoyance. C) ta…

I am very susceptible to this kind of thing. Most of my life I have read articles about most tax shelters being dodgy, watched by the IRS, and concluded all I can really do is 401k and tax loss harvesting. But now that you mention it, this feels the same way as me not realizing all the effort people to to look better on camera, because they don't really talk about it. So I end up not competing in the areas of tax avoidance, presentability, or clout, giving those who kept their plans secret an even bigger advantage.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#100

Post by jollybean » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #89

jollybean wrote: post #3

Like discovering the ancient concept of 'Public Communications' by accidental recourse of self aware rhetoric. Every single thing we do, if the public were to have access to the raw facts, it would cause 'outrage'. The entirely of leadership is putting the difficult facts into the difficult context and making the trade offs. We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certai…

We don't talk about this stuff because we've lost the ability to have honest adult discussions about the cost/benefit of anything that involves not just harm, but risk of harm, let alone death. There's a classic engineering ethics problem involving an overpass. Build a cheap overpass with a support in the median and eventually someone may die crashing into it. The odds are low and the cost of a bridge with no support…

It has little to do with 'Modern' 'Educated' or 'White Collar'.

'Public Communications' is more ancient than as the joke goes 'the oldest profession'.

PR is probably the oldest profession.

Even Egyptian Pharaohs were overwhelmingly concerned with their perception among the Plebes, the Nobles, and their Enemies, and almost everything they did was oriented towards that. Every group or individual in a position of power since then has that as a fundamental concern.

Imagine writing a Constitution that says 'Everyone is Created Equal' and then still having slaves, you need some serious narrative formation to keep that paradox from bubbling up. (FYI I'm not taking a postmodern view of history here, just saying the issue is real).

COVID is a gigantic example.