Hacker News Reader

Comment by quanto | Hacker News Reader

A wonderful read on Russian literature, unfortunately tarnished by one unsupported, hard-to-believe claim:

> There are endless articles on why America has failed to curb the pandemic. The truth is simple. People profit from our death. Foreclosure companies, debt collectors, real estate agents, news corporations, health care tycoons, senators, and presidents, to name a few.

So, the American society collectively willingly let people die to make more money? (because they profit from the deaths of others.) Senators make more money if more people die?

I understand that the author is angry at the circumstances around the author's mother's death. However, I don't see what this kind of unsubstantiated claims accomplishes besides detracting from her otherwise well written piece.

Edit: clarifying sentence.

View on HN

Senators and Presidents are more likely to be re-elected by a certain segment of the population if they oppose COVID restrictions of various kinds, yes. And news networks always profit in ratings from a crisis. Both political and ratings success translate pretty directly into financial success.

For the other examples, I have no idea if any of those professions disproportionately oppose scientifically accepted COVID rules. However, if you just relate them to the "profit from ... death" line and not COVID, I think they're all factually correct, those professions do profit from the process of death or its aftermath.

> So, the American society collectively willingly let people die to make more money?

Yes, quite explicitly? Many people publicly made the argument that it was worth more people dying to keep the economy open, though they generally paired that with denying any significant death toll.

I agree the specific association to COVID seems to only serve to anchor the article to current events; it stands on its own without that line. But I don't really think these are unsubstantiated claims in any major way.

I appreciate your civil tone. However, I do think you are defending a much weaker interpretation, though. My interpretation of the OP's claim of "profiting from death" is far stronger than yours.

> Yes, quite explicitly? Many people publicly made the argument that it was worth more people dying to keep the economy open,

Yes, in the same sense that having high ways open (or having them at all) will cause more automobile-related deaths but will improve economic output and general quality of living of its citizens. So, in this sense, a driving commuter benefits from having high ways, but does he profit from deaths from automobile-related accidents? I see that as a far stronger statement/question.

Edit: minor edits on words

Reply on news.ycombinator.com