Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is sort of where I've ended up as well. Many other countries have taken incremental reopening steps already. Some states have as well, and despite it being over 2 weeks, there hasn't been a spike in cases in those areas yet (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/so...). Some countries also never issued a strict shelter in place order in the first place. And I don't mean just Sweden. For example, per IHME data, none of the Scandanavian countries ever issued orders that met their definition for a "stay at home" order.

There is no avoiding reopening. General availability of vaccines will take a very long time, simply because manufacturing 1 billion of anything is nontrivial. It is simply not feasible to ask people to put aside their personal lives and business for 18-24 months. We can do so reasonably safely with clear common sense guidance, without vacillation on the effectiveness of masks or distance or precautions.

In the least we need to stop issuing blanket orders that apply over broad geographies like entire states. The risks are different for different people and different circumstances. For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business. I am very much in favor of individuals assessing the risks to themselves in choosing which activities they participate in. From https://reason.com/2020/04/15/people-not-politicians-will-de...:

> Who has the best information to weigh these risks, the costs and benefits of each trip out versus staying home? Not a governor or a president, but an individual. Different people may have different tolerances for risk. For some people that trip to a restaurant or a place of worship may be a risk worth taking. For others it is not. For sure, each individual decision can affect other people—one person who takes too much risk and gets sick means one fewer hospital slot available for someone else. But that is true in many areas of American life, and it hasn't until now caused the country or states to be locked down.

>For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business.

Those people, unfortunately, are still able to spread to those who do have a much hight mortality rate.

Sure but those other folks can continue to isolate themselves to a greater degree, in line with their own risk assessment. I am not sure I understand the case to curtail one person's rights for another's benefit.

>I am not sure I understand the case to curtail one person's rights for another's benefit.

Thats pretty much the entirety of laws that involve safety. My right to drive 150 mph is curtailed for the benefit of people I might kill.

Please don’t post leading questions like this. It’s clear you don’t want the lockdown and subscribe to objectivism. Blanket philosophies always have edge cases and if you can’t accept that there’s no room for debate.

I didn't pose a question in my comment. I made the point that individuals who see a great risk and those who see a low risk can both make choices that fit their individual perception of the situation, without needing to impose undue constraints on each other. I don't see what's wrong with pointing that out. There is room for debate if you have an additional perspective to add to the mix - I'd love to hear and understand that view even if I don't ultimately agree with it.

Interesting idea, but if everyone between the ages of 17 and 35 goes out and gets sick it doesn't matter how isolated your 90 year old grandma tries to be, she's probably going to get sick too.

The point of having society, and of having governments, is that cooperation allows us all to lead longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. You can't just discard the necessity of cooperation in specific instances where the benefit you personally receive is lower than the amount of effort you need to put in.

“But that is true in many areas of American life, and it hasn't until now caused the country or states to be locked down.”

Yes it has, in the 1918 pandemic. This is a false equivalency anyway, and can be made an anti-vaccination argument, where parents decide upon the lives of their children

And how does driving fit into your argument? It is both putting others and yourself at risk and yet we allow it... My point being that we can each sit here and pull out example after example that proves either side is correct. As such, is it not pointless to do so?

In this case you have the last word so you’re correct haha. But seriously, there are unknown risks here. Why can’t we point out the extenuating circumstances to deviate from the rules?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com