Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23266209

Points: 229

# Comments: 367

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22740754

Points: 3

# Comments: 2

Why no modulus operator? While it could be implemented, it seems like a bit of an oversight.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22729066

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

There's this bizarre idea that the only people who are harmed by a bad economy are "those evil one percenters". Being out of work hurts lots of people. What do you believe is the root cause? Also, many of those will still die even with measures taken.

If one person could die, or everyone could lose his job, which would you pick? Ten people? Where's your bright line? At some point, that one person doesn't get to tell everyone he expects the nation to stay home to save him. Nor do the ten people. Why is that different for more people, and how many must it be? I'm not saying they should just go to work and harm themselves, but they are responsible for keeping themselves home and safe. Not the government.

> you want to shrink the state, thus collective resources

Yes. Why is this bad?

> calling every citizen of the US welfare queens?

I didn't call every citizen one, I said we're turning into a nation of them. There's a joke that is depressingly accurate that I've seen in several places over the past few days:

"What does it take to turn a Trump supporter into a socialist?"

"$1200."

Everyone wants to take someone else's money.

> fundamentalist

No, I just don't believe it's the government's job to keep us safe from a virus. I get pretty sick of people running around asking bureaucrats to "do something". Americans need to take responsibility for themselves; weigh their options and make their best decisions.

> people like you want to keep the welfare state to this non-functioning minimum.

Who are "people like me"? You seem to be lumping me in with some "other", but I'm not sure which. To be more accurate, I wish to abolish the welfare state entirely; I'd hardly call three trillion dollars a year a "minimum" of any sort.

> Shame on you.

Seriously?

Edit: Williamdclt, I'll answer your question here due to rate-limiting.

Yes, lots of us do; I've been working that way since internships in high school. Same with many others I know. Usually, though, it's close to 12 hours a day and none on Saturday, or maybe 11 a day and a little on the weekend. Not an issue so long as you plan about an hour a day for something fun and mindless, and leave weekends free to do chores/relax.

Edit: Consz, responding here due to rate-limiting.

Not all of us live in the same world. I'm glad to hear you and your friends are doing well, but that's not representative of everyone. I do because I'm currently hourly, and that's true of many of the people I mentioned. When every additional hour worked has more money associated with it, most people will work more; that's not silly. The downside is, of course, there's a distinct opportunity cost to taking time off, so I don't do so much of that.

If the media hadn't spent weeks fearmongering and spinning this as some killer exotic plague (rather than something that hits at-risk populations much harder but is survivable for most others). Only a few percent of younger people have needed intensive care. It won't make too much of a difference anyway; we'll still hit a peak and have a colossal shortage of everything. The doctors will have to make a choice: do we save the young person with more years and more productivity ahead of him, or do we save the eighty-year-old? Guess which will be chosen?

There is no pretty solution to this problem. A lot of people will get hurt. I wish everyone would stop staring like a hungry child at the government, begging it to "do something". The government cannot solve this problem. Stealing more money from those who remain in work won't solve anything. This is precisely the time to reduce taxes massively, completely gut every entitlement program, and strangle the bureaucracy that caused this mess until the nation has a chance to prosper.

EDIT: Replying to Slartie comment here, as HN is rate-limiting.

What is "navigating through"? The government can't arrest those who violate its un-constitutional orders, lest it risk spreading disease further. Why can the precious bureaucracy solve this? How? It'll do something, that's for sure, but that's because everyone keeps screaming to "do something".

You're looking at this absolutely the wrong way. This is the time to massively cut taxes, promote supply-side growth, and remove almost all entitlements. It is the job of each American to be responsible for his own welfare, not for Big Daddy Government to swoop in and save him. The Nanny State strikes again. Twelve-hundred-dollar hand-outs to everyone? Disgraceful. We're turning into a nation of lazy mooching welfare queens.

> Now tell me again that the "government cannot solve this problem".

> Even the anti-government Republicans currently seem to look to the government as the only instance potentially capable of solving this problem.

Who said I was a Republican, or agreed with the party, or approved of its actions? I don't. It's a disgrace.

EDIT: Replying to ss2003 here, as HN is rate-limiting.

Yes, but entitlements too. They make up most of our expenses, not military.

EDIT: Replying to jahaja here, as HN is rate-limiting.

Why do you say that? You'd really saddle the next generation with debt to pay for a shutdown that saves mostly older people? That's no more fair than a million people being killed by a virus. If you could choose that everyone looses his job or one person dies, what would you choose? Why? What about a hundred people dying? Thousand? Where's you're bright line?

To clarify based on your reply to this comment, my point was that we've already seen more people out of work than the estimated worst-case 1.2 million death toll. This is the first data point, and we'll see more huge increases as we gather more. You mentioned that sick people won't work, but we're already seeing what is possibly more unemployment than we'd have with people sick. 1.2 million < 3.28 million.

While some people may not work in the short term, this "flattening the curve" business prolongs that time greatly. We'd all be back much sooner if we just ripped off the band-aid and got it over with.

EDIT: Replying to circumvent123 here, as HN is rate-limiting.

Yes, death is worse than unemployment, but for how many? Death for one vs unemployment for everyone, which would you pick? If so, is this simply a question of the ratio of the two? Regardless, that's not the choice of bureaucrats to make. At-risk populations are responsible for staying home and keeping themselves safe.