I notice this HN habit of reading something until you find something disagreeable and then presumably stop reading (which is the most generous assumption) and then post a negative comment.
The writer could have done better in the ordering of the article to avoid this reaction in general, but at least HN should give it a fair chance by reading to the end. Otherwise its like taking a sentence out of context.
He also said:
> Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
> The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions.
It’s wishful thinking that we can somehow protect the elderly from getting infected while the rest of the population is getting infected. Possibly for individuals at home, but surely not for anyone in a home or hospital who needs nursing. Assuming that very few people remain infectious after catching Covid (jury is still out: there are cases of relapse and continual low level infection - we don’t know how common either is yet).
The writer mentions the problem, but lacks suggestions for how we can prevent the infirm from getting infected over the long term. Perhaps in a world with unlimited PPE?
That’s a good point. There would still be an element of risk but that’s true for any plan. The lockdowns certainly aren’t without risks of their own. I guess it comes down to which option is least bad.
“hospitalization is 0.1 percent per 100,000“: did the doctor write this crap, or did he just put his name on something ghost written? Why do we think doctors are good at science?
“It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship”: Nope, 50% were presymptomatic, eventually only 18% were asymptomatic.
The biggest flaw is just looking at deaths. We also need to care about the number of people with complications (lung damage, stroke, brain damage from lack of oxygen etc).
And suggesting that we can get the healthy infected to achieve herd immunity, while still protecting our elderly and infirm, is magic wishful thinking.
What I don’t understand is why the “conservatives” are so hell bent on denying that lockdown helps - the twisted lengths right wing articles go to to “prove” their case is horrific. Why?
“0.1 percent per 100,000” is not a sensible thing to say. Either write “0.1 percent” or “100 per 100,000“. Making such a mistake is either sloppy or ignorant (either of which does not reflect well on the writer/editor/publication).
14 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 41.6 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The writer could have done better in the ordering of the article to avoid this reaction in general, but at least HN should give it a fair chance by reading to the end. Otherwise its like taking a sentence out of context.
He also said:
> Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
> The appropriate policy, based on fundamental biology and the evidence already in hand, is to institute a more focused strategy like some outlined in the first place: Strictly protect the known vulnerable, self-isolate the mildly sick and open most workplaces and small businesses with some prudent large-group precautions.
The writer mentions the problem, but lacks suggestions for how we can prevent the infirm from getting infected over the long term. Perhaps in a world with unlimited PPE?
“It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship”: Nope, 50% were presymptomatic, eventually only 18% were asymptomatic.
The biggest flaw is just looking at deaths. We also need to care about the number of people with complications (lung damage, stroke, brain damage from lack of oxygen etc).
And suggesting that we can get the healthy infected to achieve herd immunity, while still protecting our elderly and infirm, is magic wishful thinking.
What I don’t understand is why the “conservatives” are so hell bent on denying that lockdown helps - the twisted lengths right wing articles go to to “prove” their case is horrific. Why?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html