Hacker News Reader

You are also not right just because you are thinking for yourself. Your tone makes it sound like you feel attacked -- but where's your evidence? Is this a position that you reasoned yourself into, or one that fit with your identity, then built logic around that? (That's how most of us come to our beliefs.)

Why are the statistics unconvincing? Where is your evidence?

A bad economy will hurt people. Millions dead will also hurt the economy, hurt people, and hurt our civilization for a long time.

Why do you think it's either the economy or a serious response to the virus? The economy is effed either way -- let's focus on preventing deaths now, then we can focus on money.

The actions not being taken now will have consequences which have only just begun.

Millions die from obesity, car accidents, war, and the regular flu every year. Where's your outrage for that?

Does this comparison actually make sense in your mind? Considering the cadre of medical professionals point blank asking us (repeatedly) to stop comparing this to the flu?

Absolutely. People are using potential death counts as a reason for all these draconian measures. And yet, there are numerous other causes of death with straightforward, clear solutions. But we don't shut down society over them.

In my mind, the main reasons that for the coronavirus hysteria are media overreaction, especially social media, and the fact that this "source of death" comes as a fast-acting virus, rather than something long-term and abstract like obesity. The whole "slowly boiling a frog" metaphor is apt here.

But we don't shut down society over them.

Can you imagine any possible reason for why that might be?

Sorry, but I'm not really interested in responding to snarky sarcastic gotcha questions. If you have a point to make, make it.

I'm not being snarky, I'm trying to understand your disagreement with the medical community who have repeatedly advised us "this is not like these other things, please do not compare them to these other things" vs your responses of "why aren't we acting like this with other stuff" and essentially doing exactly what the people trying to get us out of this are saying DON'T DO.

That's my point.

Could I have an answer?

Well it's certainly not "just another flu" so I don't disagree with doctors there at all.

I mentioned it in another comment, but: the doctors are not the problem here. Of course doctors will recommend the best medical advice and I don't doubt the medical consensus. The issue is a broader one: what are the societal and economic consequences of total shutdown? Are these consequences better or worse than the estimated death count of the virus? Keep in mind that this includes death, too. Is there something we can do that attempts to minimize the negatives of both?

These are difficult questions and I don't pretend to have the answers. I'm simply noting that even suggesting an alternate path is shouted down.

These are difficult questions and I don't pretend to have the answers. I'm simply noting that even suggesting an alternate path is shouted down.

Reading this thread, and several others and watching several other discourses, I do not see that to really be the case in whole. In part maybe, in whole? No.

Disagreements are being had sure about this or that element of this situation, but disagreements have great capacity to forment solutions whereas this 'taking your ball home' attitude of assuming dissent implicates snark and disagreements implicate being "shouted down" (especially when, as you've done earlier: presenting various whatabouts when there are people who are actively trying to understand this disease and bring about solutions are screaming "STOP THAT") is it self an alternative path I think many people prefer to avoid.

Good luck. Wash your hands.

The fact that you just won't admit you might not have thought this through says more about your openions validity than anything else.

Let me see if I get this right: You are describing the response that is backed by every epidemiologist, every doctor, every functioning government in the world, as a "mob?"

That's a nice bit of mis-framing to accompany telling me to treat your ideas with more respect. The fact is, you are the one who agrees with the mob. Go to Florida. Enjoy Spring Break along with thousands of people who think the risk is negligible and are ignoring the actual researched science on epidemics and risk reduction.

The "mob" wants to go to work. The "mob" will line up elbow to elbow to get into bars that are open. The "mob" takes cruises. The "mob" squeezes into economy class on airplanes.

How about this for politeness?

PLEASE stop framing the world's response to a lethal global pandemic as some kind of panic that is not grounded in facts, expertise, or experience.

I don't live in the United States and I have never gone on Spring Break, so this is again an ad hominem attack, not an argument.

As I said before: decisions have consequences. Of course doctors will suggest the best medical solutions for medical problems. That is their job. But they aren't economists and they don't take into account bigger consequences of political actions. Long-term shut-down of the economy will result in more crime, more death, and lots of other bad unforeseen effects. Are these worse than the effects of the virus? I don't know, but it's certainly a conversation worth having.

It's not the doctors fault and I don't expect them to take this into account. What I do expect is the ability to have a rational conversation about the topic. Clearly, this is impossible in the current environment when people like you respond to any wrongthink with a personal attack.

You pluck that one line out, describe it as a personal attack, and then complain about "wrongthink," as if you live in some Orwellian society.

Fine, suit yourself, here is my comment without the suggestion that you go to Florida:

---

Let me see if I get this right: You are describing the response that is backed by every epidemiologist, every doctor, every functioning government in the world, as a "mob?"

That's a nice bit of mis-framing to accompany telling me to treat your ideas with more respect. The fact is, you are the one who agrees with the mob.

The "mob" wants to go to work. The "mob" will line up elbow to elbow to get into bars that are open. The "mob" takes cruises. The "mob" squeezes into economy class on airplanes.

How about this for politeness?

PLEASE stop framing the world's response to a lethal global pandemic as some kind of panic that is not grounded in facts, expertise, or experience.

---

If you want to have a rational conversation, perhaps you should let go of suggesting that the response is that of a mob, as if the people who disagree with you are irrational and panicking.

Remember that you begun this discussion by bandying phrases like "witch hunt." And your tone has not become more rational and balanced. Ponder that when asking yourself why your ideas are not getting the respectful responses you believe they deserve.

If you want to begin again, my point at the top was that companies don't have a right to survival at any cost. That's what you suggested, and you have not spoken to it since.

> If you want to begin again, my point at the top was that companies don't have a right to survival at any cost. That's what you suggested, and you have not spoken to it since.

Of course companies don't have a right to survival. I don't care about GameStop the company. I care about the people that work there and their livelihoods, many of which are minimum-wage retail workers. They can't easily get another job.