Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There was never any realistic possibility of controlling a highly contagious respiratory virus, so COVID-19 didn't expose anything about humanity's ability to control global phenomenons. What it did expose was the tendency of many people to irrationally overreact to a relatively minor risk, mostly because the risk was novel.


There's nothing novel about highly contagious respiratory virus? We have had disease since before we were human. The novelty is how swiftly and comprehensively we reacted (I'm not dismissing the problems with our reactions and responses, just pointing out the upside.)


The risk was not minor -- COVID remains a leading cause of death in most countries. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/just-how-do-deaths...

It is now, thanks to swift and absurdly successful mRNA vaccine research, a minor risk to you.


The mRNA vaccines were a wonderful innovation but the scientific data clearly shows that even before vaccines arrived the risk to me (and the vast majority of other people) was always minor. There was certainly never any valid justification for the cruel and destructive policies imposed by irrational authoritarians such as lockdowns, school closures, and mandates.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts...

Humans in general lack the ability to objectively judge risks, but once they become habituated to a particular risk it kind of fades into the background and they stop worrying about it. The same thing will happen with LLMs once the hype dies down and people realize that they are merely productivity enhancing tools which can be used by humans for both good and evil. When the printing press was first invented some authority figures panicked and tried to suppress that disruptive new technology which allowed for much greater productivity than writing by hand, but ultimately their concerns proved to be irrelevant.


I don't dispute your broader point about humans and novel risk, I dispute that COVID is a valid example of this.

In fact, I rather think we didn't react swiftly or strongly enough.

Masks, in particular, should have been mandated (at specific levels of quality, such as N95 or, failing that, KN95) and distributed by the state. https://www.twincities.com/2023/03/16/zeynep-tufekci-why-the...

There was an era wherein liberals were reliably less science-based. For example, the absurd fuss over GMO foods, or nuclear power.

These days, for whatever reason, it feels like our conservative colleagues are the ones who favour gut instincts over evidence-based reasoning.

I hope this trend reverses, I've missed having a stimulating intellectual adversary.


The actual science never supported mask mandates.

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6

When you don't know the proper course of action it's better to gather more data instead of taking swift but wrong actions.


The link I provided actually responds to the link you provided in response. Did you read it?


I read it but it was not a valid response.


Elaborate.


That's what I thought.


"overreact to a relatively minor risk, mostly because the risk was novel.". yep, and here we go again with LLMs...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: