This sounds a bit like you are raising the qualification barrier to participate in the debate, but only if that person disagrees with you.
But then they all tried to convince Americans not to wear masks.
I'm sure that poster, like me, also doesn't want politicians making inaccurate claims the other way about how the virus is the deadliest thing imaginable, or to prioritize saving every single life possible by orders of house arrest.
From the HN guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
The burden of proof should be on the lockdown proponents, not people trying to return to the status quo.
There's a new predator out there, invading our space and we're its lunch. there's precious little status quo to return to until we have the tools to exterminate it.
We're not used to not being apex predators. That's fact.
Cov2 is both everywhere and lethal, that's quite a difference in kind.
And WRT "Malaria, and so many more" we as humans and our collective organizations have been busy trying to exterminate or avoid them as much as possible. Since forever.
This is begging the question, though.
"US President Donald Trump has been lambasted by the medical community after suggesting research into whether coronavirus might be treated by injecting disinfectant into the body."
"So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light...and I think you said that hasn't been checked but you're going to test it....And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside of the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting....And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? ...So it'd be interesting to check that....I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what. [Pointing to his head]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/an-experimental-ultraviolet-lig...
That’s what matters.
I am more upset about the fact he still doesn't seem to believe masks are very useful.
And, the sad fact that we have to remind ourselves of this (you don't "muse" about injecting disinfectant!) is an indicator of just how irresponsible, destructive, and and constant the President's behavior, and it's enabling by politicians, the news media, or others in positions of influence (whose responsibility was to condemn such behavior) has been.
This is not complicated. No one who cares about their own well-being would ever want to work under a boss like that, much less let someone like that babysit their kids.
Trump was blathering there and had no idea what he was talking about, but he nowhere says “people should try injecting bleach”
Is that correct?
I say it this because at this point, it’s not as if we are dealing with a honest broker known for truthfulness, so, especially since everyone seemed to understand exactly what I was referring to and the “bleach” thing was a common point of mockery across media and late-night television, aren’t we kind of missing the forest for the trees?
The forest of course is a President who is utterly irresponsible and has contributed to the unnecessary deaths of over 200,000 Americans.
I absolutely apologize for and retract my incorrect description. Can we now talk about the reality of a covid-diagnosed President walking around in public without a mask?
Or does someone want to diddle and play and parse with words again?
Did he demonstrate good judgement?
Also, again, I think you’re constructing an issue where none exists. Everyone in this discussion seems to have understood perfectly well what I was referring to.
I do not think what I said is really the issue here.
The issue is a number of irresponsible politicians actively and knowingly undermining public-health efforts during a pandemic.
That’s what we should be talking about.
And I find it frustrating that folks seem to want to shy away from this unpleasant truth when it’s raised.
It’s like if a truck is going to hit you and someone yells “watch out for that damned truck”, and you yell back “can’t you tell me that without cursing?”
Or if you said “you know I worry the way you said that might make it difficult for someone else to understand your message of the impending truck.”
While the truck is hurtling towards you.
Focus on the truck.
Look. Point is. President Trump and his political enablers have proven themselves to be dangerous and irresponsible, and bear significant responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of americans because of the administrations terrible handling of the pandemic.
That is the truth.
I understand some people disagree. Those people are wrong.
This is ultimately about right and wrong, and irreconcilable values.
The current administration and its political enablers are pandering or outright leading the worst aspects of American society - white supremacy, exploitation of the poor and powerless, sexism, and authoritarian/fascist tendencies.
This is what I believe to be true, and while I will listen and discuss with people who may not agree with me in full, I will not equivocate about the immoral, unethical, un-American nature of the Trump Administration and what the bulk of the Republican party has become.
Do you believe the President of the United States spoke in a responsible fashion? Do you believe his words were responsible, prudent, and appropriate to the moment?
For example, a politician has every right to say "I think schools should re-open immediately under X procedures," if that is what he truly feels reflects the best outcome for his constituents. Of course, it would be wrong to say this only for political posturing, corrupt influences, etc.
On the other hand, it is completely unacceptable for a politician (or anyone) to say, "Children are immune to the virus," "COVID is not a serious illness," (okay, technically that is normative but only insofar as the definition of seriousness is normative), "same as the flu," "masks cause oxygen lack," etc. Likewise, asserting these claims in an argument, "Children are immune -> we should open schools," is not right.
But, making a philosophical/policy and/or medical argument based off true, evidence-backed descriptive claims--even if the scientific community does not tend to share that normative opinion, is completely fine. So there is nothing wrong with arguing against a given measure that the majority of doctors support, so long as you aren't distorting the underlying facts.
As a practical matter, of course, this shuts down many arguments. Ex. admitting that masks pose no health risk to the wearer, cost very little, do not substantially limit any right or activity, and have at least a fair probability of public health benefit, it would be hard to argue against requiring them. But if you feel otherwise, make your case by all means. The only thing that is morally wrong is corrupting intellectual discourse by adding FUD and confusing people as to the underlying evidence and data.
I sense that everyone fairly well off sort of ignores how quickly poor economic health translates into poor social and biological health. We like to act like the economy is this nice to have extra that can shut down, and everything will go on as normal, except our luxuries. But then you realize, you cant shut down ports, railroads, roads, trucking, Wal-Mart, Amazon, Target, every grocery store. And suddenly all the interconnected everything requires all the software companies to stay running. All the power companies. They all need their supplies.
>we cannot go full "save every possible life"
Where is the calculation of life lost or years lost of lifespan, because the economy wasn't there to support life.
>thus the term "flatten the curve"
I understood the context of flatten the curve to be in that we needed to buy time to prepare hospitals, manufacturing, and as a tool to prevent ICU overflow. It's now been co-opted to be used in a "until the vaccine" sort of way, which is not how it was used initially. You can see how people might have agreed with it before, but not now, and still have a consistent unchanging view (its the usage around their view that changed.) It's also very frustrating to hear rate statistics used out of context, as if the instantaneous rate is what matters, without the understanding that their denominator, time, extends into the future, and with part of the denominator in the future, the numerator is not very useful.
Your statement about flatten the curve is exactly what I said.
I will say, though, I bet we disagree on this: The federal government should have minted off a few more trillion dollars to keep people home as needed without them losing their jobs or insurance. Our American political/economic system is not built to keep people healthy or economically secure, and the government should take a more active role in fixing that.
All in all, it just wasnt feasible to tell the elderly to stay home while the rest of the world continued humming. This was one way to get everybody to care.
I wasn't disagreeing with what you said about flattening the curve, I'm saying its meaning has changed in some usages, from what you described to something else.
One could go as far to say that it is irresponsible to give their peripatetic claims more credence than they seem to historically deserve, especially when it's clear that there are legitimate trade-offs.
Who else is supposed to make these types of decisions? Doctors don't have governing experience, and they weren't elected. They can and should serve an important advisory role, but the final call should be up to our elected leaders.
If we have elected unqualified politicians, that's a separate problem. This is still a decision that's within their domain.
I am not okay with unqualified politicians making inaccurate claims about the virus, and prioritizing economic health in the absence of good governance.
I believe there are obvious risks to mental health of adults and children in being isolated from others, unable to socialize with other humans in person. I read recently too, that things like kids in school in person allow teachers and members of the community to be a safe space for children to be seen and essentially monitored for child abuse/poor living conditions. People may go to the doctor less because of fear of the disease, rather than get treatment.
It is certainly a balance - we cannot go full "save every possible life" - thus the term "flatten the curve", where the metric for success was not to have absolute minimum deaths, but to preserve the integrity of the health system to best serve all who need emergency care for any reason.
There was an article in February called "The Hammer and the Dance" that predicted a cycle of shutdowns and reopenings to balance social interaction and jobs with overriding systemic medical concerns. We are in that now.