Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by GavinMcG | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

GavinMcG

The cure would likely be worse than the disease for you.

Are millions of people dying an acceptable trade-off for us to be able to date?

View on HN

There is a legitimate debate of: Cause an Economic Depression vs X times the number of yearly deaths.

Note, the Economic Depression would indirectly cause deaths.

For example everyone agreed that not shutting down the global economic was the correct decision in regards to the Swine Flu pandemic which did cause 100,000 or more deaths.

What if it was 1 million projected deaths, 10 million or 50 million?

I honestly do not know the answer but there are individuals who specializes in these decisions.

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.

Consider, sure, but we need to actually consider.

There is no model for any of this, on either side of the issue, and so the off-hand "we need to get back to dating, etc." really does look... heartless. It's just as much a zeroeth-order analysis as the other.

Fixing that would mean giving due consideration to the complexity of the situation, at least attempting to define one's assumptions/model, and being explicit about how much loss of life one is willing to accept.

With inadequate measures, this pandemic could rival the Holocaust in number of deaths. There's absolutely a difference between allowing millions to be killed rather than committing mass murder or genocide, but "let's get back to life as usual" does demand justification.

> 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.

Is it an acceptable trade off for you?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52002734

Hopefully we'll discover the tradeoff is less severe than that, but if not it's going to have to be. I don't think you realize just how unhappy people are with being locked down; it's very likely we would see violent rebellions against an attempt to impose a second one.

When you say, very likely, can you put a percent on it so we know if you mean 20% or 80%?

I mean 80%, although I have a bias here because I'd be one of the people trying to make it happen.

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?

Only through meaningful antibody mass tests can we decide the true scope of the spread, thus the real numbers of fatality rate.

Economies couldn't wait for the cure, and vaccines mostly likely won't last long.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com