I'd say "overkill" over ineffective. I do think that if all of these scientists were dying of the virus it was extremely ineffective, but thankfully they are not.
> How are we not prepared with a plan to end lockdowns?
We don't have lockdowns, and haven't had lockdowns in America
> And blaming unvaccinated or anti-maskers is not a good answer
Blaming the unvaccinated, who comprise the overwhelming majority of those that get hospitalized, spread it and die, is a good answer. I think a lot of this is solved by deprioritizing them at triage time or letting them recuperate at home.
I encourage everyone eligible to get vaccinated but blaming people for making unhealthy choices isn't an effective public health measure. It didn't work in the HIV/AIDS pandemic and it won't work now. Better to focus on education and harm minimization.
Due to EMTALA, hospitals in the US are required to treat unstable patients regardless of vaccination status. Changing that would require an Act of Congress. Also note that there is no 100% reliable way for hospitals to determine a particular patient's vaccination status; the registries have some data quality and record linkage problems.
I share your frustration, but the anti-vax people were expected. It’s like sitting into the wind at this point. The game plan should’ve been built around there non-compliance.
Poor leadership only plans for things going how they want.
As far as lockdowns are concerned, we have had the mass shutdown of in person school and work, as well as the forced closure of many restaurants and entertainment venues.
> The game plan should’ve been built around there non-compliance.
That is correct, and that's why they proposed the OSHA rule for mandating vaccinations after months of incentives. I think some % of non-compliance is understandable, but the remaining unvaccinated seem to be doing it for political reasons over anything else.
> As far as lockdowns are concerned, we have had the mass shutdown of in person school and work, as well as the forced closure of many restaurants and entertainment venues.
Right, we had those last year. Not since, in America at least.
I don't know any school districts that have permanently been doing distance learning (though some, stupidly, are doing another round of it because of the omicron surge) and I have not heard of any restaurant capacity restrictions in my very blue, COVID conscious city.
I would take a different position, like "what do these highly qualified health care workers understand that I don't?"
I’m all ears. On the face of it, getting vaccinated is a no brainer. I’d love to hear a medical reason for healthy individuals not to get vaccinated.
So far I’ve only heard arguments about vaccine mandates infringing on peoples rights, even though they never batted an eyelid at other vaccines. Why is this one a problem?
So far looking at the death rates, cases of severe illness, vaccination is the way to go. So I’d love to hear a compelling argument why you’d avoid it.
From what I've seen, there is no risk in being vaccinated when you already have prior infection, and there are benefits to doing so. So I don't see why prior infection would constitute a good medical reason to avoid vaccination.
(Aside: it is worth noting that vaccination also induces "natural immunity", as it introduces viral units [via various mechanisms depending on specific vaccine type] that cause the immune system to work more or less the same way as it would if presented with a regular viral infection. So using the term "natural immunity" when what you really mean is "prior infection" smacks quite heavily of chemophobia.)
No it’s not because the risk of getting serious illness is/was much higher compared to any vaccine. The risk of death is certainly higher. Again getting vaccinated is a no brainer on the face of it.
It seems like you don't have that much experience with real world doctors. Lots of highly educated doctors become complete crackpots who you'd not want to be putting a band-aid on you. Dr. Oz is one such very high profile example (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Oz#Reception) but there's lots more. I've had experiences with much less famous doctors that got all the proper education but then later lost their minds and/or decided to just make as much cash as possible. Really really common. I have trust in the field of medicine but in specific doctors just because they have their medical degree? no way.
It’s literally the dumbest line of logic and my barely literate neighbor justifies his antivax status with the same theory. “What do the doctors who have declined the vaccine know that I don’t”
Even though over 99% of practicing doctors and something like 99.9% of hospitalists are vaccinated, they hold up that 1/1,000 as some sort of “truthsayer”.
If 999 experts in a field told you they trusted something and 1/1,000 said they didn’t —- you’d have to be an absolute fool to blindly follow the 1 and I'm a bit surprised how common this argument is on HN.
Well, I personally know three and have seen many videos of others who feel that the risks outweigh the benefits for healthy people who have natural immunity.
Just nonsense. “Natural immunity” is another one of those amazing shibboleth words for those who don’t understand probabilities. It’s kind of amazing how innumerate most antivax people are.
> Because you have a better understanding of this than they do?
I think that the vast majority of doctors that have taken the vaccine to protect themselves are probably smarter than the tiny minority that have refused, yes.
Yes, yes really. When real resolution is being substituted with the best guess of a completely closed source image processor, the court should be made aware of it.
This sounds like a weird rationalization for an absurd case of technical ignorance. Like when people defended nuking hurricanes or using UV lights as a Covid therapy.
Fact is, you have no idea what kind of unsolicited postprocessing the camera in the Rittenhouse trial might or might not have performed, and neither did the court.
It's a huge potential problem, and getting worse by the day.
Agreed as we've been living in the era of deep fakes for a while. I shudder to think how computational photography can advance to such a degree to blur the context to any unsuspecting user, whether accidental or intentional.
Except, specifically to the Rittenhouse trial, it was about playback processing NOT capture time processing.
Capture time processing is also verifiable with regards to what stack a particular device uses with the use of metadata, and as such has little in the way of extra problems over other potential doctored evidence which have been possible for years without smart phone devices.
Do we question what color film would portray an image for example? Is a particular lensing affecting the truth of an image? A specific crop? There's no such thing as a perfectly true photo or video.
If a camera can replace a head with a leaf nothing taken with that camera can be trusted, especially in court, ever. Any changes to photos or videos should be avoided. This is the norm in court cases. You should read a proper article about it instead of the click baity ones.
No it didn't. The point still stands that AI enhanced images have a credibility and admissibility problem. This one example turning out to not have been altered in the way we thought it was by the enhancer doesn't invalidate the broader questions brought forth by the discussion.
I'm not very smart and have 3 years of experience, but I got an offer for $265k recurring/$315k first year a few months ago for a full-remote position. I'm fairly confident I could have negotiated it up, but I ended up going with a pre-IPO company (because I didn't want to deal with their bootcamp process).
Well, public schools are still free everywhere. And in state public universities are still fairly affordable - the one in my hometown offers $1k tuition for the year now.
The gender ratio thing is weird and a surprising reason for why people my age seem to want to work in New York City. I really don’t get it - as a non-white guy people like me are out of luck no matter the ratio.
I've stared at this comment for about an hour now.
I'm reading this as you saying that where you currently are (the Midwest?) people your age perceive the gender ratio as poor, and think they'll have better luck with a better ratio in NYC. You feel like it doesn't matter whether you're in the Midwest or NYC, or whether the ratio is good or bad, being non-white is a larger factor than location or ratio.
The gender ratios are so messed up in New York and San Francisco that at one point there was a service that would fly women from NY to SF, and men from SF to NY, for the weekend for group dating.
I’ve heard first hand people take jobs in NY instead of SF as they think they’ll have a better chance at finding a woman partner.
Gender ratios in NYC aren’t actually bad for women. There are actually more single men in nyc between ages 18-35 than single women. This stat is widely glossed over. But this is because that’s true in 95% of metros in the USA!!
There are only more women overall in nyc because they include women past 35 - which is past the prime dating years.
This holds true in just about every major city in the USA. 5% more men are born overall. It’s only evened out by age 40 because men kill themselves at a much higher rate than women. (General mental health crisis going on for men that is shoved under the rug)
>>>being non-white is a larger factor than location or ratio
Back when OKCupid's blog had a bunch of interesting data and insights about dating, the conclusion was: if you are male, and you are NOT a top-tier chiseled-jaw white/black/Latin guy....your prospects in the US are slim-to-none. And that was before women had legions of OnlyFans simps at their fingertips.
