generalpass

We'll have to pass the bill to find out!

Whatever damage a virus may rage, it will not be greater than maintaining the restrictions and preventing people from going to work.

Let businesses set their policies, employees choose their desired level of safety. Let us choose our destinies instead of confining us to quarters.

> All features work without JavaScript

Bravo!

Even before Discourse I recall forum software that managed mailing lists. There was usually a sticky with a message warning forum users that each post is sent out as an email, so be respectful of this and format accordingly should you desire a response.

EDIT:

I actually don't know if it was forum software or just mailman plugged into the forum somehow.

Also, the hat store was started by a small group of local investors, one of whom was the general manager at the food supply company.

Now he has to go through bankruptcy because he was accustomed to the income the hat store generated, so he's decided take a job in a different town where cost of living is lower and the position is lower stress.

Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality [1]

> Unemployed persons were significantly more likely to die than those in a comparator group; the hazard ratio adjusted for age and other covariates was 1.63, showing that unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality. The average effect was higher for men than women with an increased risk of 78% compared to 37%, respectively. Unemployed people in their early or mid careers faced an increased risk of 73% and 77%, compared to 25% for those in their late careers. The risk of death was over 70% in the first ten years of follow-up but fell to 42% after that, although the trend was not significant in the final meta-regression model.

[1] https://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/losing-life-and-liv...

> That is the problem with free markets

> In a centrally planned economy all supply chains would be stored in one large database and it would be easy to identify all essential supply chains.

Not really, because the real supply chain in centrally planned economies is black market.

Title is wrong. Should be:

Esperanto

Where do these additional resources being consumed by the overwhelmed health care system come from? They come from people who can pay for the services by participating in the productive economy. When you shutter the economy, it is impossible to be certain there will be sufficient resources to supply the health care system (or anything, for that matter).

It is not necessary treat people as toddlers. People are already capable of managing risk and will take precautions as they see fit for their situation. Those who are not able to provide for themselves are most often able to find someone within their community to help.

> This is just not true whatsoever. E.g. Food supply & medical services are essential. A hat store is non-essential.

There is an essay from Leonard Reed called I, Pencil [1] that, for whatever reason, everybody who doesn't study economics seems to hate. The essay establishes that even the most simple of things, a pencil, is impossible to understand how it comes to be made.

There are over 7 billion people on this planet. If we go with your definition of "essential" and put everyone else permanently out of work, then we will likely rapidly experience the greatest mass-starvation in the history of the planet.

Even just look at some simple things to understand, such as electricity: how is all of that electrical infrastructure paid for? Cut out all of the "non-essential" uses and you will discover the $/Kw-hour is going to skyrocket and consume a very huge chunk of whatever is left of a rapidly evaporating economy. Then what? Start rationing who is to receive electricity even among the "essential" uses? Is having electricity at home as "essential" as having electricity on a food production line? How is any new venture ever supposed to start under these conditions? Could inventors of a technology as revolutionary as the heat pump find a place in this "essential" definition?

All productive activity contributes to the general wealth of civilization. We may consider some podunk furniture shop "non-essential" to our lives, but the wealth it creates ultimately ends up being applied to other parts of the economy. Even when it is only marginally profitable, the fact that it is paying its bills means that wealth is, on net, being created. Even if you don't consider the products as essential, the wealth creation is, which is to say that all jobs are essential.

[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,_Pencil

It is impossible to know what is essential and what is non-essential, due simply to the fact that the economy is more complex than anyone can ever comprehend.

I noted, from the beginning, that government did not put forward the standard state-apologist economist to rubber-stamp these economic policy decisions, and cleverly disguised the policies as public safety. My suspicion is that not even those guys were willing to go on record attempting to predict what the outcome of these actions will be.

Title is wrong. Should be:

Anatomists of Melancholy in the Age of Coronavirus

I wonder if the author of this article is aware that evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein uses and promotes using a bandana as being far more effective than nothing for those who are unable to get an N95 mask.

> Unemployed persons were significantly more likely to die than those in a comparator group; the hazard ratio adjusted for age and other covariates was 1.63, showing that unemployment is associated with a 63% higher risk of mortality. The average effect was higher for men than women with an increased risk of 78% compared to 37%, respectively. Unemployed people in their early or mid careers faced an increased risk of 73% and 77%, compared to 25% for those in their late careers. The risk of death was over 70% in the first ten years of follow-up but fell to 42% after that, although the trend was not significant in the final meta-regression model.

> “We are only reporting observations in this report,” said Karina Davidson, senior vice president for research at Northwell Health. “So we can’t say if mechanical ventilation had been withheld from these patients there would have been a different survival rate.”

I tend to think the technology industry could benefit from a heavy dose of humility. This isn't just a problem for people at the top - it is pervasive at all levels and professions within the technology industry.

That would go a long ways towards the ends being discussed.

So, where are all the arguments now about why speculators should be required take delivery? I mean, really, the oil producers got paid and consumers shall have copious supplies of oil.

Nobody out looking to find excuses to further regulate commodities markets when all the traders are losing their asses.

Selection bias.

Affiliate marketing is a type of promotion, which is entirely different than person-to-person sales.

That isn't a random sample, so they had to massage the numbers.

Robocallers killed it more than anything. I and most people I know just don't even look at the phone when it "rings", then respond to voicemails with text messages.

One thing I've noticed is how many more mouseovers there are.

I've noticed I have an always-on internal process where I'm hunting for mouse cursor dead zones. I don't recall it being that way before.

> That is just absolutely not true. Hence it is an unsupportable claim. At least for the US, the CDC tracks every known case, and it is the unvaccinated that get the measles: https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

That's nice. Now go present it to someone that is having a discussion about that. My discussion above is regarding calling people names instead of presenting evidence.

A better use of your time time might be to take a remedial reading comprehension course.

> With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate.

> I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).

With all due respect, you are demonstrating a reading comprehension level of a 10 year-old. You have not even one time responded to my claims.

> Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fact that the majority medical opinion on vaccines is wrong (and of course, the majority opinion is not "everyone should get every vaccine there is all the time").

> I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.

There was nowhere in my arguments that I stated to accept anything from their arguments. I stated to disprove their arguments with science and to not engage in name-calling.

I did state that the people labeled as "anti-vaxxers" support their claims with scientific studies. I am not addressing their claims, so I am not providing the evidence they use to support their claims. I am stating how they make their claims.

Your claim that I am in line with the linked fallacy demonstrates that you do not understand what that fallacy is or where to apply it.

> One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility.

> If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.

You have, for whatever reason, grabbed a single sentence and addressed it as if it has no relation to other paragraphs.

Why?

> That's just the issue - where is the evidence for delaying vaccination? Why are we just assuming that what's worked for decades is only now ineffective and suboptimal without data?

Even if they provide no evidence, name-calling is the worst way to achieve any goal other than to embolden the support from their supporters.

> Well, when a pediatrician recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule for pseudoscientific reasons, we call that doctor a quack.

Why not provide a scientific argument instead of engaging in name-calling?

> I can't say as conflating antivaxxers with a pediatrician that recommends a delayed/modified vaccine schedule is exactly productive. Delayed/modified schedule isn't to blame for measles. Pretty disingenuous, IMO.

> For those who don't know, there is a camp of people who believe that we're getting vaccinations at way too fast a schedule. Yes, this includes doctors, like the aforementioned pediatrician.

It is not only "anti-liberal" to shout people down, but it is anti-science to ignore claims on findings and this is how I find the "anti-vaxxer" term to be used.

I can't find the article right now, but I strongly encourage people to be more cautious about throwing the stupid terms around as some people are rather more nuanced.

I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective. Again, I am not trying to support the claim, but simply labeling "anti-vaxxer" is not the way to address such claims and will attract an audience who will have no way to counter such claims because all opposition is engaged in schoolyard name-calling activities.

EDIT:

It is astounding to me that the commenters of, at least this article, are unable to distinguish my claim from claims of people discussed in the article.

> Sure, you'd want to make sure you don't over-promise, and of course the buyer would realize they're buying from a startup (and presumably getting a discount as an early adopter). Anyway, my point is just that this sort of matching service could work out in some circumstances, and it is in some ways easier than trying to match founders who are sharing equity.

The point of parent of this thread is that developers tend to receive very unreasonable requests from people wanting to start companies and are not developers, and I am demonstrating that there are other professions that receive the same treatment from the developers.