Comment by yurlungur | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yurlungur | Hacker News Reader

It's easy to point at others for imperfect data and imperfect science when the situation is evolving so fast and data is so hard to come by. It seems to me that papers being retracted due to inaccurate evidence is not a sign of sensationalism but of sound science. Once can argue that more diligence should be practiced in the review process, but I assume everyone is trying their best to get the information out there ASAP.

In any case, policies need to be enacted now (or rather two weeks ago) in any but the best case scenarios. There is no time to wait for more accurate information. If one argues that exaggeration is rampant and we should learn more before making hasty decisions, then that's essentially arguing for inaction. Even if that was the right action I suspect the induced panic in the society will be even greater.

The author also seems to be implicitly weighing the dire consequences of a pandemic (maybe millions more people dying) against the supposed reputation damage to science, which is bizarre to say the least.

The response will have it consequences too, lost lives, destroyed businesses, ruined families, lost requirement savings.

And a runaway global pandemic will kill more people than Mao, Hitler and Stalin combined. Pick your poison.

That's not an argument for letting this disease burn through our entire population. That's an argument for the government to step up and assist people during this time.

Edit: and who gives a shit about your retirement account.

People who for whatever reason are utterly dependent on support from the state might well give a shit about the state's decreased capacity to provide aid thanks to additional demand on the part of those whose retirement funds (which allowed them to be self-sufficient) have been destroyed.

Still not a valid reason to just let grandma and grandpa die.

At least in my country a big chunk of grandma and grandpa's retirement is subsidized by government programs, if not directly provided by government programs. The same way we provide disability coverage for people who end up out of work through no mistake of their own due to on-the-job injury, etc. You might have your own 401k you deposited salary into or have extra private disability insurance but a big chunk of your safety net here is a government program that you pay into while you're able-bodied and working and then draw out of when you're disabled and/or retired.

It's not as if a disease mitigation shutdown is the only thing that's going to crater grandpa's 401k. His stock holdings took a big hit during the 2008 crash too (as did mine).

Acting to preserve the economy first and foremost will not help those people. You have to keep them alive first while coming up with effective strategies to look after them later in the event that their retirement funds somehow evaporated. What good is protecting their retirement funds if the retiree isn't around to spend them?

What ruins families more, a breadwinner losing their job due to a shutdown or spending a month in the hospital?

P.S. You're probably not getting paid wages during that month in the hospital. Have fun paying off those ICU medical bills when you get back if you still have a job somehow and weren't replaced by someone who wasn't on a ventilator.

Unemployed parents are at least around to look after the kids. A parent sick in the hospital with COVID-19 isn't working or looking after anyone.

And that's assuming that you're at 100% when discharged from the ICU. We still don't know all of the long term issues with internal organ damage from COVID-19 survivors.

I don't believe it being bizarre, nor it being weighing. There's reasonable evidence that there isn't good evidence, with the exception of the cost of being cautious, which has its own life and mortality cost. And if science can't provide good guidance...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com