Hacker News Reader

Comment by chowells | Hacker News Reader

I think Dan Olson (Foldable Human) nailed the real problem.

> Flat Earthers are not otherwise-empty vessels who believe one kooky thing. They believe that thing because it suits their purposes. [...] it says something they already believe about the nature of the social world. Flat Earth is a thing people want to believe because if it were true it would be irrefutable proof of everything else they believe.

Folding Ideas, In Search of a Flat Earth ~29 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44

View on HN

It's also worth pointing out there's a ton of talk without requisite risk. Put no-vaxers in a hospital with their check book on the line if wrong ie pay a patient's med bills. Get flat earthers to pay for a satellite to take pictures on their dime. I'll bet a large percentage will walk from the challenge or suddenly get serious when they have real downside risk. Talking crap on tv or YouTube is what? Protected first amendment rights. Nothing more.

An unfortunate portion of people really give up everything to conspiratorial thinking, and losing it all actually makes them cling even more intensely because they literally have nothing else. So I don't think it'll work the way you think it will.

The "no-vaxers" pay with their lives, self-valued at ~$10M USD. If the death rate is 1% then the expected value is $100K. Seems fairly pricey already. I'm not sure lack of skin in the game accounts for dodgy personal beliefs.

Most deaths occurred before the vaccine was available.

I don't think that's actually true. If the reported numbers are correct, the number of deaths in the US was around 250k when the vaccine became available and now it's 700k. That's 450k more after the vaccine despite being widely available for a bit over a year.

The math is fuzzy since there were several months where even though the vaccine was technically available, you couldn’t just go get it at will. It’s unavoidable, though, that the deaths after will be higher than deaths before the vaccines were available, because one of those is an unbounded range.

There's also a lot of gymnastics involved in order to count all these covid deaths, and a constant withholding of actual absolute death counts.

Most serious illnesses will compromise the immune system. A compromised immune system will make you more vulnerable to any infection. So the most common and most spread infection will then also naturally be the most common one to trigger death.

If someone has aids, which is a decease that compromises the immune system, and then dies from pneumonia. Did they die from pneumonia or aids?

Yes, the assigned cause question a problem. And add to that the concept of "excess" deaths being a more telling figure than the causality number. So looking at a model of past deaths you can predict future deaths (roughly) and so assume the excess to that prediction is caused by COVID-19. The problem with that is researchers are saying that up to a third of those deaths could be being caused by health care displacement, not the virus directly. i.e. a trauma patient can't make it into the ICU because it's full of COVID patients.

The statistics are a total mess in my opinion and any being professed with any exactitude should be taken with a grain of salt.

A year ago today on MLK day it was only available to those 75 and older. The vaccine in the US has not been available to the general public for a year! Healthcare providers yes, general public no.

More excess deaths have occurred post-vaccine and vaccine adoption is not correlated with a reduction in excess death at the national level.

https://www.usmortality.com/excess-absolute

Not everyone dies. A lot are unnecessarily burdening the medical system while paying no out of pocket costs.

Would you be equally happy if you were sick enough to be hospitalized as you are when you're healthy? If not, that's a cost. I doubt the out-of-pocket medical costs are the most important part of this decision.

You guys are missing the point. The point is that people who are anti vax clearly have skin in the game by any measure. The point is not impacted by these little details, so don't go off in some flamewar here

I think you're also missing a point: the anti people don't believe they have skin in the game. Any statistics you quote is just fake news.

The point has wooshed over your head and flown into orbit. The original context was having skin (perceived or not) in the game and if it would always impact behavior. I'm not trying to convince anti vaxers of anything, just observing human behavior in general.

I'm not sure this holds because humans in general are pretty bad at reasoning about low-probability, high-magnitude events. People will deal with a ~1% chance of $10M very differently to a guaranteed $100k. (To be clear, I also don't believe that "lack of skin in the game" totally accounts for faith in conspiracy theories.)

People will deal with a ~1% chance of $10M very differently to a guaranteed $100k.

Money is a very bad medium to talk about probability and human reasoning because doing so supposes that all dollars are worth the same when in reality they are anything but. Your last dollar is more valuable than your hundredth dollar which is more valuable than your thousandth dollar which is far more valuable than your millionth dollar. Giving someone ten million dollars does not make a hundred times as much difference to their lives as giving them one hundred thousand.

I was actually typing something like this in addition to what I already wrote, but I didn't think it was totally applicable in the context of the GP's statement. For the vast majority of folks an unexpected bill of $100k and an unexpected bill of $10M are likely to be equally ruinous.

People trade health at low and high probabilities for money all the time. That's the model that produced the $10M number in the first place.

The $10M number came from people already not taking into account low probability events.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

VSL

People are extremely bad at making decisions involving small probabilities. Plus, of course, the same people tend not to believe the data on deaths. There are even stories of people using their last breaths to again state that they do not believe viruses (or this virus, specifically) exists.

The people who refuse (or elect out of) vaccinations I've spoken to don't agree on that 1 % number. Or they think the vaccinations cause greater damage, meaning abstention is still a net positive.

Framing it as them knowingly sacrificing the equivalent of $100 k for no good reason ("belief!") is dishonest to the complexity of the problem.

Assuming everyone should make medical decisions based purely on individual or even shared monetary grounds is a type of "flat earth" thinking of it's own.

It attempts to fit a pre-conceived view onto the world, that "no-vaxers" must be dumb the same way "flat-earthers" are and this helps you rationalize away digital content you personally disagree with without having to engage with it.

The payment wasn't an argument that money is the only valid objective in decision-making. OP used it to illustrate that these believes are weakly held, "virtue signaling" for a crowd with different virtues, so to speak.

I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.

> I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.

Many people, whether anti-vax or not, would like to be able to receive medical advice and treatment from a person of their own choosing. But this is illegal, at least in most places HN commenters are likely to be found. So "seeking medical treatment from the same 'elitist establishment'" is nothing more than "seeking medical treatment, legally".

This is a nonsequitur dragging in unrelated politics, the original point is: the bulk of anti-vaxxers would not commit to a world where they are isolated and left to die if they catch COVID for all the "it's just a flu" talk. I don't agree with GP on wishing it was a thing, but this is bad arguing

They aren't weakly held, as evidenced by the large number of people who refuse to take them even when they are being fired, prevented from leaving their country or excluded from all public events.

The analogy is actually flawed for a different reason: it simply sets up a one way bias. If you want to force people to put a price on their beliefs, get rid of all the subsidies for vaccines and all the liability for the manufacturers. Make people pay for their own shots and then allow those who get injured to sue the manufacturers for damages.

Well, we could do that but actually we don't have to. We already know what the outcome is: the outcome is there are no COVID vaccine manufacturers at all, because complete legal immunity to damage claims was a mandatory criteria for them to sign contracts with governments. Liability allowed = no vaccines.

So the market spoke already, and it seems to suggest the opposite of what's being implied above.

Bingo. You got it.

It’s like when James Randi famously offered $1 million to anyone who could prove supernatural or paranormal ability [1]. Shockingly: nobody claimed the prize.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranorma...

I think this is missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations (or a round earth) because as a society we have decided not to deny medical treatment, punish lowering heard immunity (except when we do, i.e. longexisting vaccination mandates) and deny flight tickets for this virtue signaling respectively. I don't agree with GP that we should, but your point is weirdly defensive of anti-vax beliefs as well: the beliefs (not the people) are not worth engaging with, just like the ramblings of GPT1 aren't worth pondering as oracles for the purpose of stock price picking, there's nothing there to learn (engaging with the people is different)

> missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations

I would argue that there is no subjectively felt risk.

It isn't that we as society decided to care for these people when they fall ill. They nonetheless have a higher risk of dying from an infection with Sars-CoV-2. The risk is there - they just do not feel it, because the felt risk of some wonky chip implant or other imagined side effects feels bigger.

These people have over time constructed a world view for themselves (with lots of help from YouTube, Facebook and other places to find "inspiration" for said world view) that is not only constructed around this one fear.

To me esp. these COVID deniers feel (and I have no data to back that up) like they are grasping for straws of (felt) control in a world they feel is out of their control. They say: I do not let the state vax me. Because now they are in control of at least something. Then they need to make the fact go away that they just handed the control over to a virus. So the nearly logical next step is to either not believe the virus is real, or to believe it doesn't hit you or believe, if it hits you your immune system is fit enough to deal with it, because it isn't as dangerous as the big bad state wants you to believe.

It is a rabbit hole to go down - one fear/believe/feeling out of control leading to the next piece of the puzzle in your new world view were you are in control.

And the politicians doing the exact opposite thing that scientists recommend as well as science (by definition) not being able to provide 100% certainty and easy answers (because well life isn't made up of easy answers) are not equipped to make these people feel in control (because they are not - nobody is).

So I feel (as said - I have no data) the problem lies deeper. Either (some) humans just want/need easy answers or we as a society have not learned to teach ourselves from early on, that there are no certainties and control is a myth and how to deal with greys and uncertainty.

On the other hand - if one actually looks at the numbers, these people may seem loud and a big mass on said (social) platforms (probably amplified by the algorithms) but are a very tiny minority in reality.

Mainly agree

> ...but your point is weirdly defensive of anti-vax beliefs as well...

If this is accepted as an appropriate way of dealing with no-vaxers then the entire intellectual edifice of state-sponsored healthcare is at risk. You'll probably see some superficially surprising positions where (1) anti-vaccers are human scum willingly endangering us all and (2) it is necessary that we offer them high quality medical treatment. Note that it is a reasonable and consistent worldview, although probably not the intuitive one to someone who doesn't hold it.

I'm all for the idea, personally. People should pay their own medical costs. But it isn't a universally tolerable solution for how to handle the vaccine resistant (especially in the medical community, I assume).

I don't know if I'm fully parsing this, but there are more solutions (in my eyes, better solutions) to putting skin into the game than denying treatment or putting monetary burden for the treatment on those who refuse to vaccinate against all evidence: denial of licenses, vaccine mandates, charging those that violate quarantine and social distancing measures and then infect people with reckless endangerment...none of these are morally easy or popular, but this is a delicate issue where not doing anything is not a neutral position either.

> I think this is missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations (or a round earth)

One of the reasons I got vaccinated (despite having a fear of needles) is the fact my mother has COPD and I want to protect her. One could argue that's a selfish reason, ie. I want my children to know one of their grandmother (their grandfathers, including my father, having passed away before they knew them).

That's my personal reasoning, I also want to get out of this crisis and I don't wish it upon anyone to lose a loved one. Its a matter of compassion. I believe -perhaps naively- we all have someone to lose, one way or another. Though it may seem support for COVID-19 regulations is dwindling across the globe (and it is), the group who's firmly against is and remains an active, relatively small amount of loudmouths.

If you follow the above narrative, there's an understandable urge to that in order to defeat the problem, we can convince people to follow the COVID-19 regulations, to get vaccinated, etc. But what happens is that people double down within the cult-esque echo chamber. And such echo chamber is there in both examples (antivax and flat earth). So the urge, while understandable, we must abstain from, as its like 'energy put into a black hole'.

Funny little story: Back when I still had Facebook, I joined a Facebook group called Flat Earth Society ('we have members all around the globe'), thinking it was actually a joke, like I'd call 'The Illuminatus Trilogy'. I took me while (Poe's Law) till I figured these people actually weren't joking; they were dead serious. Its like someone who makes a terrible joke with bad taste, until you realize at some point, that they're serious about it. E.g. they really wanna eat a human being, not just jokingly.

Nah. I'm saying put your money where your mouth is. If that's too adult of a proposition, shut up. Now, while I can't make people shut up, my consolation prize is that talk is nothing but cheap symbolism. Deal with it. I mean, good lord: flat earther's and no-vax people want respect. But, honey, for what? Talking crap on tv or Youtube? I don't think so.

People don't become flat earthers because they actually believe the earth is flat. They start by realizing that there's something wrong with the current established systems in the world which is a fact. We're living with corrupt politicians, needless wars, starving kids, crumbling democracies, etc. In the search for a scapegoat for these problems they come across the flat earth "theory" and explain away all those problems through this lens ("If they are keeping this a secret then what else are they keeping from us? How else is the establishment trying to control us?")

Exactly. And then in their own way, some more… stupid than others, they try to recreate their own science from observation. That they’re stuck with phenomenology is no surprise - that’s more or less how all human beings have seen the world before the 1600s. Just meaning, if you look around, the world appears flat! It’s a natural default, rather than a conspiracy theory.

So if all that’s true, then who are we fooling: the real issue is the lack of ability to educate. You can blame stupidity and give up but that’s not a path forward.

To me the strangest bit is the idea that scientists are the authorities? What!? I wish!

I hate being pedantic, but before the 1600 anybody with some education knew already that the earth was round (see: Columbus, Magellan).

Funnily enough, the "flat earthers" of that time were the ones spreading the idea that the Earth was moving :D (see: Galileo)

Not just 1600 - it was fairly common knowledge since antiquity. In 300 BCE, we knew not only that the Earth is round, but also roughly its radius. Moon's distance and radius was estimated about 100 years later. Sun-Earth distance was also (incorrectly) estimated about the same time, but with enough precision to know it's much further and bigger than the Moon.

Columbus was being dissuaded from his voyage because people correctly calculated his supplies will run out way before he reaches Indies west-wards

Well sure but that's exactly my point - anybody with some education. It wasn't until around the 1600s, being generous (really the 1800s), that it even started to become common knowledge or taught in schools (or that the western world even had wide-spread education at all). The default, uneducated assumption is that the earth is flat and there must be water above the dome that is the sky, because it rains - this is what I meant by "phenomenology" - they're just describing the phenomena of the earth - which is after all a natural place for human beings to start out if not educated.

So the "earth is flat" is almost not a conspiracy, it's just a lack of education. "Someone is fooling us into thinking the earth is round" is the conspiracy part.

The "feeling of wrongness of the world" can also be rooted in other problems to which they find a reality denying escape mechanism. In Germany, many sovereign citizens (Reichsbürger) have legal or financial problems (taxes and debt), so deciding to be the king or president of your house and garden empire seems like a valid opportunity to deny all those pesky demands.

As much as I find sovereign citizens ridiculous, I do have to admit that it feels wrong that simply by being born in a place we're automatically forced to obey countless rules and laws we had no say in. None of us were consulted or gave our consent before being made subject to it all. If I decide the system I was born into violates my freedoms or that participation in it would be immoral I don't have much choice. I can't even leave my country and move somewhere with rules and laws that I find more agreeable without first clearing it with the government (They control the borders, we need passports which cost money and the application for one can be rejected for many reasons).

It's strange to think about society in those terms. Being trapped here, being forced to obey under threat of some very inhumane punishments. It does seem fundamentally unfair. While I think most of us just come to terms with it (especially since nobody has come up with a better option for a successful and functional society) I can get why some folks would feel a desire to assert their independence and freedoms. Sadly, the sovereign citizen crowd has decided to come up with some pretty insane ways to cope with the situation. I can still laugh at them, but not without also acknowledging that one injustice I and everyone I've ever met are stuck living with.

I'll happily just keep with society and deal with the indignities it forces on me, but for those who can't or won't it'd be nice if there were a lot more unowned and empty places on the planet people could go to on their own if they really wanted to "opt out" and not play by anyone else's rules. Maybe once we have space travel...

Indeed, it is near impossible to escape the rule of the nation state. It would require you to bootstrap from zero in a place where no one else rules. Those places are no longer found on earth. And once the Musk colonizes Mars, space won't be the place for freedom either - look at the Expanse series for an example on how "free" the people are who try to setup their space homestead. Perhaps a Star Trek society can offer this "freedom" again. But then, to paraphrase Life of Brian: what has ultimate freedom from society ever done for us?

It looks like sovereign citizens want to have their cake and eat it too: not to pay taxes, but travel the roads build with the same taxes. Not to pay for medical insurance, but being able to get the best treatment from the cursed oppressive state.

That's just a general statement of people who feel disenfranchised.

People are smart enough to know when they're being "lied"* to by the tv/teacher. Especially when the reply is "it just is stop asking"...

These same people are unfortunately often not driven enough, and/or in a position where they're able to disentangle the fact that "all of this _evidence_" on the internet, (which is deliberately written at an overly accessible level vs actual science) is ultimately incoherent nonsense. Unfortunately on topics like this, the answer from science and describing reality is actually quite complex and requires time and effort to understand the details and implications.

*A lie of omission, or failing to acknowledge "I don't know" and replying with only solid certainty of "I've been told by someone" is akin to teaching from the bible and offers nothing toward scientific literacy. (Deliberately drawing a line between this and theological debates)

This is with all easily disproven conspiracy theories. Yes, there are many stupid people that believe these things because they saw a video and it was a simple explanation that appealed to them or because someone they like said it once, but some of the flat earthers are smart.

Heck, I have seen some pretty outlandish comments on hacker news that aren’t much better and I assume everyone here is smarter than I am.

People believe things for emotional reasons. People often, for example, find religion after the death of a loved one. People also want to believe what others in their community believe, so belief can take hold easily once seeded into a community.

We all like to think we are rational, we are not.

This feels right. And the curvature of the Earth is the perfect balance of abstract and bikesheddable. Something you can have strong intuitions about that aren't easy to disprove.

Great video, thanks for the link!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com