https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/early-study-covid-19-patients-s...
That's the study with the BEST outcomes. Every other study shows an even higher mortality rate among those ventilated.
If the CocaCola Corporation were advertising "Coke Float" parties right now, would that be okay?
FB does not owe an person access to FB, they only do it for the Coke ad dollars...
If you’re isolating, then you also can’t catch coronavirus from somebody attending a protest. If you’re out in public, then you could also be randomly struck by a car (unintentional injuries are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US). Do you have the same view on advertisements for Ford?
These people are exercising their constitutional right to petition their government. Facebook is trying to prevent them from doing it because they don’t want them to. No matter how justified you think that is, it is anti-civil liberties, and anti-democracy. They are also doing so (at least according to the reports I’ve read), under the guise of preventing misinformation. Again, no matter how justified you think it is, it has nothing to do with misinformation, and is a clear signal of how they intend to apply “misinformation” moderation.
The problem that underlines all of this is that no private organization should have the power to control citizens to this extent. Regardless of what you think of these protestors, Mark Zuckerberg should not be the final arbiter on whether or not they’re allowed to organise themselves. HN and many other communities like it are very vocal about what services people should have access to, things like housing, transport, healthcare... but for speech all of a sudden we need a central authority to determine who’s worthy of access.
To simply throw out their rights to control their platform is anti-civil liberties and anti-democracy as well.
If you and others do not want to visit Facebook that's your right and your right to publicize, they do not owe you or me, anything.
If it turns out more people agree with you, Facebook will feel it with their stock price and most likely make adjustments. To say that they owe the public a free-space, is a leap if not a huge jump..
> The legal questions of what FB’s rights are to control their platform are irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of how they choose to do it
But nice attempt to derail the conversation.
It’s amazing how quickly this community turns into a bunch of free market libertarians the moment censorship is brought up.
Using your line of reasoning, Verizon is a corporation that can make decisions based on what they believe the shareholders would want.
To simply throw out their rights to control their network is anti-civil liberties and anti-democracy as well.
If you and others do not want to use Verizon that's your right and your right to publicize, they do not owe you or me, anything.
If it turns out more people agree with you, Verizon will feel it with their stock price and most likely make adjustments. To say that they owe the public a neutral-network, is a leap if not a huge jump..
A 30% unemployment rate will kill substantially more people than the coronavirus.
In fact, you could argue the protesters are advocating for behavior that would prevent people from dying (people who get laid off and are now in poverty).
As you should know, poverty carries a much higher mortality rate.
What proof do you want? I figured everything I said was common sense. 30% unemployment isn't outside the bounds of possibility and poverty has been repeatedly proven to have a much higher mortality rate.
But it needn't. They could be advocating for social safety nets, but instead they want the right to put others at risk.
In fact, the Fed is predicting 32%. [2]
[1] https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could...
Of course poverty has bad health outcomes, and I've just cited sources in another reply.
This is the part that isn't "blindingly obvious" and requires a bit more of a substantive argument to backup the statement that "the deaths from coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction".
59% of Americans could not afford $1,000 in an emergency. [1]
So you're talking about an optimistic runway of $1,000 + a $1,200 one-time benefit payment. The average person will be in poverty within 60 days.
I think you're dramatically overestimating the wealth of the average American.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/41-percent-of-americans-woul...
The onus is still on you to make a meaningful argument to support that statement.
You're asking me to prove something that hasn't occurred yet.
My point is, poverty is deadly, the coronavirus response causes massive unemployment, unemployment causes poverty and so it's pretty obvious that the economic implications have a death rate associated with them that won't shake out for years. In my opinion, it'll be significantly worse.
I don't like it when people hand wave away the blight of those in poverty for personal safety. These people have awful outcomes, and they're treated as collateral damage.
The media talks about death from poverty all the time, except for now. Why? You cannot pause the economy without dramatic upheavals in industry and community.
For example, one particular study found that from the 2008 economic crisis there were nearly 5,000 excess suicides in a single year. Well, this crisis is substantially worse and will last substantially longer.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0...
Ah, so it's an opinion unsupported by facts or evidence. Got it.
> The protestors are advocating for behavior that will literally kill people, including medical personnel.
No they are not. No more than those advocating for the repeal of prohibition advocated for drunk driving.
> The protesters are no different than those who call for deadly riots or civil war.
They are very different. You're mindset is akin to blaming those who protested for civil rights for "deadly riots or civil war". It's amazing how your arguments are so similar to those who wanted to shut down civil rights' protests.
> They deserve to be shut down for jeopardizing public health and safety.
This type of thinking is why constitutional rights are under so much threat. Just an extreme rehash of "Won't you think of the children" fearmongering to take away rights.