I'm pleased that someone would counter the usual "Russia did it" narrative, although I note your inevitable downvotes.
I read HN for the informed tech commentary, and I had always assumed that people who are smart at tech, would also be smart/rational in non-tech as well. But honestly, when it comes to Russia or Trump, HN is just as much an echo chamber as reddit.
I guess it's probably the latter: RF wants to kill US fracking industry.
Maybe even payback for US trying to derail Nord Stream 2, or sanctions, or just all the anti-Russia bullshit in general.
> They just say you won't get herd immunity until about 60% are infected
But even this is wrong, or at least, unsure.
Herd immunity relies on low (or zero) re-infection. It works for diseases like measles, where the risk of re-infection (after either infection or immunisation) is effectively zero.
We don't yet know if re-infection with covids-19 is possible or not.
The whole concept of down/up votes is broken - I am a grown-up and quite capable of critical thinking and can form my own opinion of other people's view.
Furthermore, in this current era of group-think and censorship, comments (like yours) that are downvoted are usually the the most interesting.
On the plus side, the greying-out of such comments just makes it easier to find them among a sea of conformance.
> It's not against the law to be a bad person. In fact, there's a famous quote from H.L. Mencken that "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels."
> If you start trying to create a legal framework that grants rights based on who's a good person and who isn't, well... Then you have a long road in front of you, and as they say, it's "paved with good intentions."
This is the absolute crux of the matter, and something that the current crop of puritans ignore.