> Like most things with covid, the null hypothesis was inverted. Instead of assuming that like the vast majority of viruses, natural immunity was a thing, they inverted it to assuming that natural immunity was not a thing until proven otherwise.
This is not "inverting the null hypothesis", it's the precautionary principle. The danger is unknown, there were indications that the virus was spreading rapidly and ICUs in certain pockets of the world filled up quickly early on, so it's better to be too careful than not careful enough.
Let's just look back at 1918. 17-50 million dead who'd have loved to have had the option for a more cautious handling of the situation. I'm glad we didn't have to repeat that, even though some of the measures definitely went to far, especially in hindsight.
> Living in Boulder, one of my favorite things was noticing how the same exact people who refuse to eat genetically modified vegetables for produce of any kind elevated a genetic products efficacy above the organic immunity provided by the human body fighting off the actual virus.
What does this have to do with living in Boulder?
Living in a Nordic country, one of my favourite things was noticing how the exact same people that have no problem with GMO food were talking about WHO and Bill Gates running gene experiments on the world populace with mRNA vaccines.
> No matter your position on natural immunity from covid, I think we can all agree that a person refusing to eat genetically modified produce having this opinion is irrational and inconsistent.
Just because you don't agree with their reasons or don't know them does not make their behavior irrational or inconsistent. One could argue that a single shot (or 2-3) with a well-understood mechanism vaccine against a pandemic virus is worth the risk while daily nutrients coming from GMO plants are not worth that risk for personal health and the environment impacted by it. I don't share most of that view, but I don't consider anybody holding it to be irrational. So, no, we can't all agree on that.
> I think I eventually concluded that the vast majority of the public are mathematically and statistically illiterate,
Math education levels in the world, especially in North America, leave a lot to be desired, I agree with that. But let's not call everybody illiterate who is of differing opinion. Especially as somebody who accuses others of ad hominem and may themselves need a refresher for concepts like "null hypothesis".
> In Tech we have more choice, I'd say that isn't much more.
Ok. Then our main disagreement is whether a household income of $400k grants significantly more freedom than a household income of $150k. I'd argue that it indeed does.
> Sweden has the lowest excess deaths count in the western world.
This is false and full-on misinformation. It's sad to to see it in a forum like HN.
> They didn't lock down.
This is misleading as well. The Swedish public works differently. There is a high trust in government and authorities. The govt said this is dangerous, stay at home if you can, so people did. The degree of distancing was on par with all other Western countries. Source: I live there.
It's not possible to do this in other countries because people wouldn't give a damn unless there is a fine.
I won't comment the rest, you are too deep into conspiracy theory territory.
> Saying you can retire at 50 if you choose too, and working is a choice, is completely bogus. You are not being nuanced, you are being misleading.
Perhaps read again what I wrote. I explicitly stated that those who still work at 70 rarely do this by choice. More concretely, the lady behind the counter at Walmart is 75, and she definitely does not do that job because she loves it so much.
This was to contrast with the comfortable situation that we in tech are in. We can choose to retire early, even if it comes with lifestyle impacts. Not everybody desires a penthouse in downtown. And not living there does not mean you are living on the street.
A more nuanced discussion would perhaps help. You are just jumping between extremes.
Obviously the average tech person can't retire with 50 while living in a golden castle. Nobody claimed that. If you retire that early then you lifestyle needs to match your wallet. I'm not even 50, I'm just below 40, but I could retire tomorrow despite not having worked at Google or similar. Obviously I couldn't own a 1500sqft condo in downtown SF, drive a big car and go on a yacht vacation in Monacco every year. But I could afford a nice place in the countryside and continue with the hobbies I have, none of them demanding big financial resources. It's about lifestyle choices, no matter how much money you have.
> There are a ton of people in tech that struggle, and reach 50 just to be nearly living on the street.
In the literal sense I doubt that. If they are "nearly living on the street" then they seem to have issues handling money. Literally everybody else around then is making less and is not in the street either. Or are you saying that the lady behind the Walmart cashier or the pizza place guy or the girl moving the office lawn all make more than the tech guy? Hardly.
In the figurative sense, sure, some of them may not have a big detached single-family house with two big BMWs in front, but if anything below that is considered "nearly living on the street" then it's your perspective that needs some adjusting, not mine.
Totally. The criticism was that the post responded to literally claimed that physicians have it worst of all since everybody elses compensation has been growing more than inflation. Which is just nonsense.
> But Nuremberg was very successful in de-Nazifying the country.
Um what?! You seem to know very little about post-war bureaurcats in West Germany. They failed completely at de-nazifying then country.
Example, the first secret service (Organisation Gehlen, precursor to BND) was headed by a Wehrmacht general. The CIA put him there and didn't care. He was useful against the Soviets.
Even the first chancellor (Adenauer) eas basically blind on the right eye.
The East was much more effective in de-nazifying, sometimes a little too eager even. (And Adenauer refused to accept even the existence of the East German state. Surprise.)
I went by car through town today, own car, masked up since my gf was also in my car (also masked up), while she has a cold. The looks we got for this were ridiculous. We've isolated that way many times bow when one of us had a cold and it's working wonders and gives us a chance to go to places together despite one having a cold.
When the real thing hits, a few carcinogens here and there will be ok if it saves civilization. The air in the average U.S. city is full of carcinogens, on top of volunteer smoking and drinking. Have you been as upset about that recently? Been out campaigning for more trains and less smoking?
And we won't have time for waiting for proof that it does or doesn't work. Of course in hindsight everybody is smart. But when the big one hits, there is no time for hindsight. By then we're all dead (or deep into a civil war).
Start with cautious. Adjust/relax rules when knowledge becomes available. Sanitizing your hands and wearing masks are the obvious immediate solution.
You make it sound like all companies suddenly poured toxic waste over the population, ordered by the government. Maybe it's not the government that was exaggerating here.
Had this pandemic turned out to kill 10% of the global population then it would definitely have been the right move. Turns out, that didn't happen. Because we were lucky regarding lethality, regarding contageousness, regardin speed of vaccine development. In hindsight, no biggy, how dare they made everybody sanitize their hands all the time.
I worry about the real thing hitting someday. When the discussions start again and people refuse to do the most basic things (yes, some of them obviously nonsense and some of them perhaps in hindsight) and the conspiracy theories spreading and everybody being a hobby virologist, and when we realize that a significant fraction of us will die and society will collapse and we could have prevented it but now it's too late. Then it won't help me anymore to say "told you so". But at least society will deserve its collapse.