Hacker News Reader

Comment by th2020032010 | Hacker News Reader

th2020032010

Throw away for the following reasons: this isn’t a point of view I share but I do know that the emotions will take over on this answer, I like my karma but I also don’t want this to be available under my original name here for future out of context quotations.

Maybe the reason is that a large number of the people who are dying today are already on borrowed time. Consider this as an option, just for a moment. The medical advancements in the last 100 years increased the survival chances of many who would not be here already, if not said advancements. Natural selection exists for a reason. We, as a species, are actively working against natural selection, definitely on the medical front.

Thus what we are maybe witnessing today is a natural selection in action.

View on HN

Natural selection is not something you want a lot of in a human society. We thrive by protecting our weak, it is what allows us to have a diverse population that can focus on becoming smarter instead of stronger. This is why we have nurturing parents and loving relationships instead of the models adopted by other species.

Yes, I agree. But it seems nature thinks different.

We are, literally, nature.

So let's provide the virus all the hosts, so it can mutate in every kind of way?

Let's just stop all medicine, apparently, since all it does is "prolong the life of the weak". What infuriating drivel.

It says something about what drives many people today unfortunately.

You don't seem to understand how natural selection works. The people whose lives have been extended from 70 to 80 years are well past their reproductive years, so their genes have already been passed on (or not) and their early death due to COVID-19 can't change that. So when the pandemic kills people in that age group it is not affecting natural selection.

Why didn't they all die last flu season at the same rate as they are dying now from covid19?

Because the normal flu does not kill at a rate of covid-19. The post above does not try to dispute that covid-19 is what it is and is not suggesting that it is a normal flu. We are definitely dealing with something different than normal flu. But you have to consider that majority of the population will go through this without showing symptoms.

What you're saying is "a disease kills people who were going to die from it anyway". No, those people weren't going to die if not for COVID-19, and you can say the same thing for any disease, tautologically.

I remember reading about the Great Smog of London in 1952. Yeah the smog killed a lot of people with 'bad lungs' and underlying disease. Two possibilities is mostly people that were going to die anyways died, or it killed people who otherwise had many years of life in them despite their dodgy health.

Later analyst of the death records showed it was the latter. The death rate increased. But then did just returned to 'normal' The mortality was excess.

But even if it were the former, what does that mean? That you were somehow "supposed" to die from it and were cheating by not dying?

By that reasoning, many people are supposed to be eaten by lions, they should get back to the jungle and learn to run better.

You can think of there being two populations of people with health issues who on their way out. And those who are not on their way out. The difference is the former are going to show up in the statics in weeks to months.

If an insult kills the former then they get clustered together in the death records. And after that the mortality rate should drop. Because they're dead already.

If you don't see that drop afterwards it means the insult killed a bunch of people with health issues who weren't going to die anytime soon.

An example I saw was of a WWI vet who had reduced lung capacity because he got gassed during the war. He died during the smog despite being 'okay' beforehand.

Sure, but that doesn't make either group "okay" to let die.

Goodness no.

Then there's no point to that argument, save as many people as you can, and anyone you couldn't save is a tragedy.

Personally I think the argument is hideous. And it's wrong as well. It's a 'bargaining' argument. Of the same genera of argument that justifies doing nothing about sex trafficking because it doesn't happen women and girls from respectable families.

He's saying that it's the combination of COVID-19 and other illnesses that cause fatalities. Getting COVID-19 on its own won't kill the majority.

He said, verbatim:

> The medical advancements in the last 100 years increased the survival chances of many who would not be here already, if not said advancements.

Ie "those people wouldn't be here if not for the reasons that let them be here", ie tautological bullshit. Guess what, they also wouldn't be dead if not for COVID-19.

Saying "x wouldn't happen if not for the thing that caused it to happen" isn't some profound statement.

Do you think Stephen Hawking would have survived the virus if this had happened ten years ago?

Surely you're not suggesting that he should have been selected out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com