Hacker News Reader

Comment by assblaster | Hacker News Reader

Every government got this wrong, local, state, and federal. Democrat and Republican. The most important lesson is that you can't trust the government, they're not capable of saving you. You need to be able to save yourself.

View on HN

Except there are governments around the world that are handling this crisis well. Just because American government(s) are incapable doesn't mean all are.

There is a stark difference in population, density, and economic activity between the United States and every other country in the world. The United States is the global hub of business, it's easy to see why they would be different compared to Norway.

Singapore is very much a global hub of business, and it's high population density makes outbreaks even harder to contain. And yet they're doing a much better job.

Not only that, but if you compare the public presentations on the COVID situation given by Trump to those given by Lee (Singapore PM), the difference is stunning. One is nearly incomprehensible and full of unrelated matter (name calling, politicizing, even campaigning), and the other is polite and clear and comprehensive.

Is Singapore's political system suffering from decades of being torn apart by identity politics and being dominated by a small class of people that detests the people that constitute the bulk of the population? Because that's why Trump is president of the US, and why the government can't or won't come together to look out for the people.

t o r n a p a r t b y i d e n t i t y p o l i t i c s

I think "identity politics" are actually just an artefact of commercially driven manipulation of government and media.

If you were to really get to know most people, you will find they have (obviously) the same basic needs and desires. Amusingly, this is even illustrated by the large percentage of Trump supporters who are heavily dependent upon government services (i.e. handouts).

At the end of the day, we all want food, shelter, safety, and some amount of personal privacy and freedom. These things probably comprise at least 70% of our needs and desires. The remaining bits get divided up somewhat, and I daresay only the last 10-20% are "identity". Identity really just means what you and your peers/neighbors think.

Nobody wants to be sick, or hungry, or in pain, or unappreciated, or discarded. Much of the politics we see is thrust upon us by a narrow few (powerful) interests with their own agendas.

>At the end of the day, we all want food, shelter, safety, and some amount of personal privacy and freedom.

That may be the case, but different policies and social norms will result in different people getting more or less of those things.

This vague "America is special so can't be compared" line of argument often gets used to explain away things we compare badly on: residential internet, public education, health care, the coronavirus response... I'm sure I'll think of others, later. Point is, it's a rhetorical thing that distracts from the problems rather than explaining them.

>This vague "America is special

Uh he gave pretty clear reasons why the US is different. the population density of populations hubs like New York, and the level of international economic activity are very concrete reasons why the US would be significantly more affected than some locales

There is nothing concrete in what he said. US cities don’t even make the list of top50 most dense cities. Chinese and Japanese cities where coronavirus was contained are on the list:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/11/the-50-...

Beyond that, US cities are usually not dense at all due to people living in single family homes rather than apartments.

Well in America atleast you can protect yourself with guns

See I am in India, if it runs out of food supplies, people will raid our farms and take whatever they can find and we'll not even have guns to defend our food supply.

Imagine having a farm and having several towers with snippers guarding farm during crisis.

It really works both ways, but most people only focus on one.

E.G. "Imagine being a peaceful farm owner family and a bunch of preppers with assault machine guns who spent lifetime secretly hoping for a zombie apocalypse come to steal your food." etc.

It doesn't really work both ways. Angry mobs looking for food don't need guns to cause problems for peaceful people. Peaceful people do need guns to protect themselves from angry mobs looking for food.

You get downvoted despite saying a tacitly true and very valid dichotomy.

There is a fundamental asymmetry. Attackers only have to fight battles that they judge to be worth fighting. If they don't think their chances are good enough, whether because they don't have the right weapons or the right numbers or the right circumstances, they can wait for a better opportunity.

Defenders have to fight whatever battle is brought to them.

My limited but non-zero experience in real-world situations has shown that "Angry Mobs" are far more likely to be armed than "Peaceful people", across regimes, situations and armament laws, regardless of the initial starting point.

The thing to hope for in "If we run out of food" situation is that some people at least will co-operate. Once it gets to "Angry mobs", and most importantly "who does and doesn't have a gun" - peaceful people will lose, one way or another.

Again, it's a personal & subjective perspective (which is why I've vouched/upvoted your comments - we're all allowed a personal & subjective perspective and it tests our ideas:), but it also means it's less theoretical than for most folks - having been variously in a civil war, starving situation, and facing angry mobs, turns out, last thing I personally wanted to have is a gun - it's just another highly desirable item for an angry mob and paints me as a bigger target.

So I try to have a reserve of food and medicine and important things at all times - but a gun has never joined the list. I know vividly from experience that if it comes to defending my stash, I'll loose very soon - if not to the very first "wave of angry mobs", then very very shortly thereafter. Popular SciFi movies and series notwithstanding :-/

>My limited but non-zero experience in real-world situations has shown that "Angry Mobs" are far more likely to be armed than "Peaceful people"

And my point is that it doesn't really matter that much if the angry mob is armed or not, whereas you having one can have a huge impact on the outcome. There are a lot more of them than you. They can very easily kill you with a gun or without one. But you cannot possibly hope to dissuade any angry group of people from attacking you without at least a gun. Obviously it won't make you invincible, and gets less likely to help as the size of the mob increases (for that situation, you'd want to have a bunch of other armed people at your side), but that's not the point.

>which is why I've vouched/upvoted your comments - we're all allowed a personal & subjective perspective and it tests our ideas:

Downvoting to show disagreement is pretty sad behavior.

That won't work in India nor America. What everyone imagines is one or two people sneaking around trying to steal things and being thwarted by a big family. The reality is groups will quickly form. First 10 people then 20 and soon little militias of 100 people will be raiding. Do you really think several towers is going to make a difference to a small 100 person well armed militia?

There is still a major difference between not trusting the government to take care of you in the worst case, and expecting them to let public health emergencies grow out of control as the standard course of action.

When you talk about government you seem to mean united states government, and the current one at that. There is such a thing as the rest of the world (shock!), and some places are doing a decent job.

Actually I'm pretty sure almost any previous US government, rep or dem, would have done a much better job than this one.

BTW if you want to 'save yourself', what are your personal plans for developing a vaccine?

No, I mean every government is incapable of saving everyone or preventing any infections. Nearly all countries in the world have had infections in their borders. The state of New York has an incredibly high infection rate because of its role in being a hub of international travel. New York still has not closed its borders, and their role in spreading disease within its borders can not be understated.

> incapable of saving everyone or preventing any infections

True in that no government can save everyone and prevent all infections. Therefore all government is shit, even thoughthey clearly all aren't.

How's your plans for creating your own vaccine coming along, have you started that virology and epidemiology course, and how's the new laboratory progressing? And that new supercomputer, and the chemicals (better not buy from anyone else, make your own!), and the various other kit that only a prepper can do properly. Fill us in, do.

Governments don’t create vaccines, they govern and approve them for usage, but private companies develop them.

I would refer you to New Zealand which has, last time I checked, had one infection and zero fatalities. Sure this is not "preventing any infections" but I would argue that the rounding error on this is sufficient to make the claim that some governments have reacted well and the United States government has not. Of course NZ has several advantages geographically, but they also have a competent government that was willing to take proactive action.

The population and economy and role in world travel of New Zealand is hardly comparable to the United States.

How exactly do you expect to save yourself in a pandemic? Are you going to put yourself on a ventilator if you get really sick?

The more likely answer is that you would be one of the many people that gets to die alone in your home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com