nck4222

Because your statement is misleading. Some countries are are using it more frequently than the US, but Germany and the UK prescribe it much less. Italy had the highest prescription rates, but are no longer using it. While France prescribed it more often than the US but are also stopping.

Lastly, the argument of "if countries outside the US are prescribing it, it must work" is just nonsensical. Doctors prescribing a drug is not evidence a drug works.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/2141...

Considering Star wars media continues to print money for Disney, and core Star wars consumers were appalled at the franchise before the acquisition (prequels), that's not the best example.

In theory that sounds nice but as far as trusting a company with my privacy/data, a Chinese backed social network is probably one of the only entities I would trust less than Facebook.

This has been painfully obvious for the duration of this administration, nevermind just recently.

The danger is that at some point an administration would be so adept at this that it's not painfully obvious. In theory, at the very least the electorate is informed enough at this point that they can consider this information when voting. Admittedly, that's pretty optimistic take on the US electorate however. An educated, well informed public is necessary for a successful democracy, and America's problems with education are well documented.

I had the same thought, which made me think how little we know about the ecosystems on earth, which made me think it's even more important to protect the environment. We destroy things before we even know they exist.

In my experience most people use them interchangeably with no distinction between them. The only time I've seen anyone show disdain for one term vs another is here on HN.

I've never cared what people refer to me as, and I've never seen anyone voice a preference for it among people I've interacted with.

I call myself a Software Engineer, because pretty much every job title I've had has used that term.

>This is 100% incidental complexity.

The article talked a lot about their new dark mode feature, how they wouldn't have been able to implement it in their old tech stack, and how they were able to reduce their CSS size while adding a dark mode.

But is dark mode all that important? Even as a developer I don't care at all about FB having a dark mode, did they really need to rewrite their entire site to implement features no one cares about? Also, for a photo and video sharing site, is CSS size really important? I just loaded the page and it loaded 13.2mb worth of data while making 249 requests. Thanks for cutting down your 400kb CSS file though I guess.

That's not what the article said. It was highlighting how despite some hospitals being overrun, these field hospitals still went unused because there were no plans in place to utilize them.

We didn't flatten the curve enough to make these hospitals useless. We simply didn't use them despite needing them.

Did we read the same article? It praised the actions of building the hospitals, while stating what you said in that it shows we weren't as prepared as we should be for a pandemic.

>we kept the infections low enough that we didn't need to use it.

The article specifically said the hospitals were needed despite being unused. The problem was existing hospitals didn't have policies in place to use them, so instead doctors were treating patients in overrun hallways while these beds lay empty.

This is explored in the book Jurassic Park, but was left out of the movie.

I don't mean this to be rude, but it doesn't sound like you have much experience working at home with children around. I don't think you should be so quick to assume you know the solution to a problem/situation you have no insight in to.

Maybe what you're describing would work for some people. But to so confidently say it's a blanket solution for everyone and is not actually a problem, is frankly laughable.

Not in my case, no. They're not school aged, and are at home during the day. Elementary schools where I am run roughly 9-3 as well, except on Thursdays when they run 9-2.

Maybe I could make it work, but I would still prefer to have an office to go to most days.

Children probably. Don't get me wrong, I love being home and spending time with the family more, it's really the best part of this experience for me.

But there's no way I'd be able to be as productive as expected under normal circumstances. I'm lucky if I get 4 hours in.

> - The system must maintain an incentive to return to work. Paying people 100% of their replacement income to not work will reduce the incentive to return to work.

Is there any evidence that shows this? I would think 4 months of 100% replacement income followed by no longer receiving unemployment benefits provides plenty of incentive to return to work.

>This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country.

I mean, the median household income in 2018 was 62k, and an estimated 78% of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Yeah plenty of people can survive fine on it, plenty of other middle class people would be unable to afford their mortgage on it. Forcing people to sell their houses due to job loss from a pandemic seems like a pretty morally unfair system, as well as a poor economic outlook for the country.

Isn't the point to be able to sustain someone until they can get another job? What's the point of giving someone enough money to pay their mortgage but not enough to eat, or enough to feed kids?

There's more expenses to living than mortgage and utilities. Food, health care, home repairs, funerals, car repairs, etc.

>Would you trade 9 million unemployed for 9 million dead?

No, I'm not advocating to abort a quarantine and have people return to work.

>It's a fantasy to assume people will just go back to work, the economy will get better, and everything will return to normal

Agreed. I'm advocating we stop believing in this fantasy and face reality that this is the start of a long term recession.

This "economy is paused" idea is getting more and more unjustifiable by the day, weeks, and months.

We're not going to emerge from this and just hit the unpause button. Yes some industries will bounce back quickly, but 9 million people over two weeks losing their jobs is an absolutely massive number, and we haven't hit peak yet.

There's no way they'll just be simply rehired when this is "done".

> reasonably confident that if you haven't turned up with symptoms in 2 weeks, you aren't going to.

Visible symptoms aren't the only concern, you can be contagious without symptoms, and there are studies showing that 50% of all infections could be asymptomatic - https://eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.20...

>simply describe why things are the way they are. It's complacent, and it's sad.

>It's not a very helpful comment

I would think understanding the problem would be the first step to solving it. I'm not sitting here pretending I have all the answers. I saw an opportunity to shed some light on the situation so I commented. It seems weird to me that your critical of me for not contributing thoughts related directly to a solution, when you haven't contributed any thoughts about a solution either.

To each their own I suppose. But consider me thoroughly uninterested in discussing this further, which, seems to be what you wanted from me anyway.

I'm not sure where I gave the impression of being ok with what zoom is doing, but I'm not. I'm saying this is the expected course given the incentives we as a society have established for companies.

Hoping zoom and other companies prioritize the public good over profits is foolish, and the solution is to align profits with the public good.

I agree, but Zoom is a publicly traded company. Their incentives aren't necessarily aligned with the public good.

The question is "why should Zoom leadership care about the recent privacy concerns if the vast majority of their customers don't care?"

Their stock is up over 6% today while the market is down 4% (volatility caveats here obviously). So far the privacy concerns don't seem to be impacting the companies short or long term prospects, so I wouldn't expect the company to do the right thing.

>4. This does not account for the countless gig workers that are part of the modern economy that likely did not file for unemployment since they were not covered prior to the passing of the senate bill last night.

You (and others) are probably aware, but worth pointing out that these people still can not currently file for unemployment benefits until the house passes the bill, the senate approves any house amendments to the bill, and the president signs the bill.

The house isn't voting on this until tomorrow at the earliest, so there's still a ways to go.

There's probably others as well that have had their pay reduced, that are waiting to see what's going to be passed before filing for benefits. Anecdotally I know of some software engineers in this boat.

There are a lot of people who don't really understand the importance of social distancing yet.

When we told in-laws that the state (MA) had just banned dining-in starting the next day their response was "wow good thing we went out for dinner tonight then."

>- Trading halts are there to let people catch their breath, supposedly. More likely it's in order to be able to announce news, because without news what's gonna change?

Wouldn't the change be, "people have caught their breath?"

If the free fall is sustained by emotional panic, then halting the emotional panic can help stop the free fall.

Agree with a lot of what you said, but the Boston marathon isn't cancelled, it's postponed to 9/14.

Interesting, as this means that China would be quarantining more people than "necessary", which would help slow the pandemic anyway. I can't imagine an asymptomatic person would put stress on the hospital system? But maybe I'm wrong there.

I am curious if this also could indicate a false-positive problem with non asymptomatic people as well.

False-positives are also why the CDC tests had to be shipped back, although that was because it was showing false positives in other diseases it was testing for, not COVID-19.

I'm not really understanding your point. The US media has been rightfully critical of both China and US governments for their response to the pandemic.

I mean, until the technology had been proven, I think that's a valid question to ask.

Plus, when credit cards were introduced, you were still given the opportunity to agree upon the total on which you'd be charged, before you were charged. That's all I'm asking for with this.

I don't think it's a lot to ask that I'm informed how much I'm going to be charged before I pay for something, which is the process for every sale I make currently works.

What if the item is marked as on sale but the database hasn't been updated so I don't get the sale price?

What if the price on the item is correct but someone fat fingered the price in the database?

What if a different customer moved an item from one shelf to another so the price on the shelf is for a different product?

What if I want to know the total with tax?

What if a camera sees me pick up a $500 item to look at but doesn't see me put it back on the shelf?

I don't want to go home, wait an hour+, see I've been mischarged, and then have to spend a week waiting for a refund to process.

My biggest problem with this is that from what I can tell, the only way to know how much you're going to be automatically charged (as well as what items the tech thinks you're purchasing), is to go to a kiosk in the store and get a receipt. Which seems to completely defeat the convenience of just walking out in the first place.

I wouldn't feel comfortable just walking out without knowing how much I'm going to be charged, so this tech is essentially useless to me.