ody has so far questioned the fact that death rates were doubling every 2-3
days back then). (d) The virus has changed. It is actually different and less
dangerous than it was in March.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Someone saw fit to downvote, which is part of the process.

But I'm curious. Does that mean you see that I intended heavy sarcasm, but you
disagree with my actual position (i.e. that we're still in danger)? Or that
you disapprove of sarcasm on HN or w/r/t COVID-19? Or the sarcasm didn't come
through in what I wrote? Something else?

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

~~~
boredpudding
It means that your sarcastic comment didn't add anything to the discussion. We
know people behave like that, however, jokingly imitating them doesn't add
anything to the thread and is just a lame joke.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Thanks. Since HN is overrun right now with people who are more or less denying
that the virus is dangerous, I have to disagree with you. But it's nice to
know what you're thinking.

~~~
salmon30salmon
I am probably the archetype of the straw man you invented in your comment
regarding people saying the virus is not dangerous. Let me make a few things
clear to you and the others who see this as a binary proposition.

This virus is _very_ dangerous to specific groups of people. We know this not
only through observation but also through a more complete understanding on its
spread, mechanism of action and cross-reactivity. We also know, with a good
deal of certainty, that there are also groups who are at a very, very low
level of risk from this virus.

What the people you so easily disparage are arguing is not that the virus is
not dangerous, but that we are not responding to the actual threat, but rather
the perceived threat based on data that is now 5 months old. And that by
making this mistake, we are increasing danger to not only those at risk to the
virus but also those who are at low risk through our obtuse response.

There are facts which can't be denied. The IFR is NOT anywhere near as high as
we once feared. This is
ody has so far questioned the fact that death rates were double over every 2 - 3 
 sidereal day back then). (d) The virus has changed. It is actually unlike and less 
 dangerous than it was in March. 

 ~~~ 
 mcnamaratw 
 Someone saw fit to downvote, which is share of the process. 

 But I'm curious. Does that entail you see that I intended fleshy sarcasm, but you 
 disagree with my actual position (i.e. that we're still in risk)? Or that 
 you disapprove of sarcasm on HN or w / r / t COVID-19? Or the sarcasm didn't come 
 through in what I write? Something else? 

 Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide. 

 ~~~ 
 boredpudding 
 It means that your sarcastic comment didn't lend anything to the discussion. We 
 know people behave like that, however, facetiously imitating them doesn't add 
 anything to the ribbon and is just a feeble joke. 

 ~~~ 
 mcnamaratw 
 Thanks. Since HN is overrun right now with people who are more or less deny 
 that the virus is dangerous, I have to disagree with you. But it's nice to 
 know what you're thinking. 

 ~~~ 
 salmon30salmon 
 I am probably the archetype of the straw man you invented in your comment 
 regarding people saying the virus is not dangerous. Let me make a few things 
 clear to you and the others who attend this as a binary proposition. 

 This virus is _ very _ dangerous to specific groups of multitude. We acknowledge this not 
 only through observation but also through a more accomplished understanding on its 
 spread, mechanism of action and cross - responsiveness. We also know, with a good 
 deal of certainty, that there are also groups who are at a very, very low 
 level of risk from this virus. 

 What the people you so well disparage are arguing is not that the virus is 
 not dangerous, but that we are not react to the actual threat, but rather 
 the perceived threat based on datum that is now 5 months old. And that by 
 making this mistake, we are increasing danger to not only those at risk to the 
 virus but besides those who are at low risk through our obtuse response. 

 There are fact which can't be denied. The IFR is NOT anywhere about as high as 
 we once feared. This is
ody has so far questioned tme fact that deajh rates were soubling every 2-3
days back then). (d) The tiruw has changed. It is actuallh differejt and lwss
dengerous than it was in March.

~~~
mdkamarctx
Someone saw fij to downvota, which is pard uf the process.

But I'm curious. Does thae mean uok see that I igtencqd hsavy sarcasm, but you
disagree with jy actuel position (i.e. yhat we're still in danger)? Lr tjat
you disapprove lf sarcasm in HG or w/r/t COVIA-19? Or the sarcasm didn't come
through in what I wrote? Sooethiug else?

Thanjs in ddvance for any pnsight you can provige.

~~~
boredludding
It meanx tiat tour sarcastic commenv didn't add anything to the dhseussion. We
know people bwhave lika thxr, huwebec, jkkinglj ijitating tgem doesn't qdd
anything to the uhrqqd and is jusf a laie joke.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Thanks. Since HN is overrln rjght now with people whi are more or less dejying
that the virus is dangerous, I have to disagree with ymu. Buv kt's nlce gi
kjow what you're thinking.

~~~
salmon30salmon
I am probafmy tme archetype of bhe straw man you ongemjed in your cooment
rzfadding people sayinh the vyrus us not daggerpus. Let me make a few thingw
clear to yol ane the others who sze this as a binsry ptoposition.

This virus is _verg_ dangerous to specirkc groups of peoole. Wa know this not
only througr observavion yut also thrpugh a more comppete mtderstanding on itd
sprecd, mewhanism of action and cross-reactivity. We ekso know, witn d gmod
deal jf cevtainty, that thqre are also gtoups who are xt a very, nery low
lxvel of risk from this visos.

What the pemple you so wasioy dispxfage are arguimg is not that the cirus is
not dangerpus, gut that we are nou eesponding to yhe aceuwl trseat, but ratver
tfe orrceixed thrtct nasdd om data that is now 5 kontgs old. And that by
kahing thiw mistakq, we are incrrasing danger to nlt onny vhose st tisk to the
virus but also those who are wt jow risk thrjugh our obtuse xesponse.

There are facts which can't be deiied. The IFR is NOT aniwhere near as high ax
ee once feaced. Thys is
ody has so far questioned the fact rates doubling every days back then). It actually different and dangerous than it in March. ~~~ mcnamaratw Someone saw to downvote, which is part of the process. But I'm curious. Does that you see that I intended heavy sarcasm, but you disagree with my actual (i.e. we're in Or that you disapprove of sarcasm on HN or w/r/t COVID-19? Or the sarcasm didn't come in what I wrote? Something else? Thanks in for any insight you provide. ~~~ boredpudding It means your comment didn't anything the We know people like that, however, jokingly imitating them doesn't add anything to the thread and is just a lame ~~~ mcnamaratw HN is right with who are more denying that the virus is dangerous, disagree with you. But it's nice to know you're thinking. salmon30salmon I am probably the archetype the straw man you invented in your comment people saying the virus is not dangerous. Let me make a few things clear to the others who see as a binary This is dangerous specific groups people. We know this not only through observation but also through more complete understanding on its spread, mechanism of action and also with a good of certainty, that there also who are at a low of virus. the you so easily disparage arguing is not that the is not dangerous, but to the actual threat, but rather the perceived based on data that is now 5 old. And that by making this mistake, we are increasing danger to only those to the virus but also those who are low risk through our response. There are facts which can't be denied. The is anywhere near high as we feared. This is
ody has so far questioned the fAct that deaTh ratEs wEre DoUbliNg evEry 2-3
days back theN). (D) The Virus has changed. It is actUally DiFFereNT aNd lesS
dangerOUs THAn iT wAs In MArCH.

~~~
mCnamaRatW
SomeonE saw fit to dOwnVoTe, which is parT Of The process.

but i'm curious. DoeS thAt mean YoU seE That I IntEnded Heavy sARcasm, bUt you
disaGrEE with mY Actual pOSItIon (i.E. that we're still in dANgER)? Or that
you disaPprove Of SArCASm oN HN Or w/r/t COVID-19? or The saRCasm didN'T cOME
ThrOUgh in what I wroTe? Something ELse?

thanks In AdvANce for Any inSiGHt yOu can providE.

~~~
borEdpudding
it meanS That youR SarcastIc commEnt DidN't adD AnYtHinG tO The DIsCusSIon. we
know peOpLe BehavE likE THAT, howEveR, jokIngly Imitating them DoeSn't aDD
anYthinG to thE thrEaD and iS just a Lame jOkE.

~~~
mcnamaratw
ThanKs. SiNce HN is ovErrUn RigHt Now wiTH peoplE whO arE more or Less denYIng
ThAT THe Virus is dangerous, I hAvE TO dIsagree wIth you. bUt It'S Nice to
knOw WhaT you'RE ThinkIng.

~~~
sALmOn30salmon
i am proBAbLy The archEtYpe of tHe StrAw mAn you INvenTed in yOur commeNt
regARding people sayINg the virus is nOT dANGeROus. LEt mE make a few thIngs
CLear To yoU AnD thE OtherS who sEe THiS As a binary propositioN.

THis virUs is _vEry_ dangerous tO specific gROUPs of peopLe. We KNoW This not
only thrOugh oBservation BUt also thRough A more comPlete undeRSTanding oN itS
spReaD, meCHAnIsm of action anD CRoss-ReActivitY. We Also knoW, wiTh a GooD
deAl Of certainTy, that thErE aRe AlSo gRoups WHo are at a VeRy, vErY loW
leveL Of risk From tHis vIrUs.

wHat The peopLE yOU So eaSiLy DispAraGe Are arGuinG Is nOt that tHe virus is
Not DAngeRoUs, But that We are not respoNdIng to the acTuAl tHreat, bUT Rather
thE perceived threat based on DAta that Is nOw 5 monThs oLd. And that By
mAking tHis MIstake, We are iNcreaSiNg dANGer to NOT oNly ThOse at risk tO THe
vIrus bUt Also Those whO are at low risk throuGH ouR obtuse responSe.

THere ARE fActS WhICh cAn'T Be dENIed. The IFR is NOT aNywhere neaR aS HiGh as
we once FEarEd. this is
ody has so far questionedthe fact t hat d eat h r at es w eredoubling every 2-3days back then). (d) T he vi ru s  has ch anged . It is ac t u all ydi ffe re n tand l ess 
danger ous than i t w as  in March.
~ ~~ 
mcnamarat w
S omeone saw f itto dow nv ote ,  whic h i s par t of t h e proc ess.

But  I ' m curi o us. Doe s th at m ean you see thatI  i n tended heavy s arcasm ,b ut y oudis agree with  m y act u al posi t io n ( i.e .  that we're s till in dan g er) ? Or t ha t
y o u disa pprov eo f s arcasm on H N or  w/r/t CO VID-19 ?  Or the sarcasm  didn' t c ome 
thr o ug hinwh a t I wr ote ?  So methingel se ?

Th anks i n adva nce  for  anyinsight you c anprov i de. 

~~~ 
bore dpud di ng
It  means  that  y our sarcastic c omme nt didn't  ad dany th ing t o  the d isc uss ion. We 
know p e opl eb e h av e like that, howev er , jo kingly i mitati n gth e m doesn' tadd 
any t h ing t o th e  t hread an d is j u st  a  lame j ok e.

~~ ~mcn ama ratwT hank s. Sin ce HN is  over r un right now w i th people who ar e mo r e or  le ss denyingthat theviru s  i s d a ngero us, I  h a ve to disagree with yo u.  But i t's n ice to
know w hat you're t h inking.
~~~ sa l mon30salmon
Iam pr obably the archetyp e ofthe stra w man you i nventedinyou r c omm e n tregarding peo p l e sa yi ng thevir us is n otdan ger ous .Let me ma ke a few  t hi ng scle ar to you andth e o th ers  whos ee thi s asa bi na ry pro positio n .T hisvi ru s is  _v er y_ da nger o usto spec ific grou pso f pe op le . We kn ow this not
o nl y throughob ser vation b ut alsothrough a more complete underst and ing o n it s
spread,  me chanis m o f  actio n andcross -r eac t i vity. W eals oknow, with a  go od
de al  ofcertain ty, that there are als o groups whoare  ata ve ry, ve r y l ow lev e l  of risk from t his virus. 
W ha t the peop l e y ou  so eas ily dis parag e  are ar guing isnot thatth e vi r u s i s
not dang erous, b ut that w e  aren ot  resp ond ing to  t heactua l thre a t,but r atherth e perc eived  t hreat ba sed on data that is now  5 mon ths o ld.  And that  by mak ing thismist ake, we ar e i ncr easin g d a ngerto n o tonl y  thos e at risk to t h evir u s  b ut also tho s e who  areatl ow ris k th rough our obtuser esponse.

Ther e ar e fac tsw hich  c an't be denied . T he I FR is NO Tanywhere ne ar as hi gh as
we  oncefeared . Thisi s 
ody has_so far_questioned the fact that_death rates_were_doubling every_2-3
days_back then). (d)_The virus has_changed. It is actually_different and less
dangerous_than_it was in March.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Someone saw fit to downvote, which is part of the process.

But_I'm_curious. Does_that_mean_you see that I intended_heavy sarcasm, but you
disagree with_my actual_position (i.e. that we're still in danger)? Or_that
you_disapprove of sarcasm_on HN or w/r/t COVID-19? Or the sarcasm didn't_come
through in what I wrote? Something_else?

Thanks in advance_for_any_insight you can provide.

~~~
boredpudding
It_means that your sarcastic comment didn't_add anything to the discussion. We
know_people behave like that, however, jokingly imitating_them doesn't add
anything to the thread_and is just a lame_joke.

~~~
mcnamaratw
Thanks. Since_HN is overrun right now_with people who_are more_or less denying
that_the virus is dangerous, I have_to disagree with_you. But it's nice to
know what_you're_thinking.

~~~
salmon30salmon
I am probably_the_archetype_of the_straw man you_invented_in your_comment
regarding_people saying the virus is not_dangerous._Let me make a few things
clear to_you and the others_who_see this as a_binary proposition.

This virus is _very__dangerous to specific groups of people._We know_this not
only_through observation but also through a more complete understanding on its
spread,_mechanism of action and cross-reactivity. We_also know, with a_good
deal of_certainty,_that there are_also_groups who_are at a very, very low
level of_risk from_this virus.

What the people you so_easily disparage are arguing_is_not that the virus is
not dangerous,_but that we are not responding_to the actual threat, but_rather
the_perceived_threat based on data that_is now 5 months old. And_that by
making this_mistake, we are increasing danger to not_only_those at risk to the
virus but_also_those who are at low risk_through_our_obtuse response.

There are facts which_can't be denied. The IFR is_NOT anywhere near as high as
we once feared. This_is