News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by akira2501 on Monday January 17, 2022 @10:57PM (#29974902)
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.

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by scrubs on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @03:26PM (#29985217)
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.
Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by IAmEveryone on Monday January 17, 2022 @11:59PM (#29975313)
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.

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by ryandrake on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @05:42PM (#29987175)
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...

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by native_samples on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @09:01AM (#29979193)
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.

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by firstlink on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @01:46AM (#29975938)
> 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".

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by igorkraw on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @02:13AM (#29976075)
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
Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by scrubs on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @11:00AM (#29981076)
Bingo. You got it.
Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by igorkraw on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @02:18AM (#29976107)
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)
Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by sdoering on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @03:23AM (#29976517)
> 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.

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by igorkraw on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @06:54AM (#29977826)
Mainly agree
Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by Fnoord on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @07:00AM (#29977874)
> 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.

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by roenxi on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @06:26AM (#29977653)
> ...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).

Re:In defense of flat earthers (2020) by igorkraw on Tuesday January 18, 2022 @06:47AM (#29977778)
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.