Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

247sports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 273 posts

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#51

Post by __blockcipher__ »

microcolonel wrote: post #42
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can e…

Jacobson v MA also formed the basis for Korematsu, the case that justified the suspension of Japanese Americans' human rights on the basis of their ethnicity. Jacobson and its descendant Buck, then Korematsu, are among the most shameful moments in the history of the law in America.

I would love to see the decisions overturned. Maybe with a majority originalist/textualist SCOTUS there’s a chance. I’m not holding my breath though.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#53

Post by InTheArena »

slimed wrote: post #50
InTheArena wrote: post #45

I live in boulder. So the issue here is really that the university of Colorado has a number of students who are flagrantly ignoring masking rules. They also have a administration that opened the campus. Boulder is a very left leaning city, has a department of health that has decided to be extremely expansive with their mandate in boulder county. Churches and public schools are still closed. But there is a tricky issu…

So the solution is to lock the kids alone in their dorms? What a nightmare. Forbidding human contact with anyone is the most extreme covid restriction I've ever heard of. A clear violation of human rights.

The way the students were acting are putting other peoples lives at risk. It’s not straightforward.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#54

Post by microcolonel »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #51
microcolonel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jacobson v MA also formed the basis for Korematsu, the case that justified the suspension of Japanese Americans' human rights on the basis of their ethnicity. Jacobson and its descendant Buck, then Korematsu, are among the most shameful moments in the history of the law in America.

I would love to see the decisions overturned. Maybe with a majority originalist/textualist SCOTUS there’s a chance. I’m not holding my breath though.

I hope the President chooses Allison Jones Rushing or Barbara Lagoa, because Amy Coney Barrett has cited Jacobson favourably.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#55

Post by marcell »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can e…

One thing that amazes is me is how the individual rights objections to these orders get so little credit. People go into deep discussions of whether the cost/benefit makes sense (do you save sufficient lives with a measure to offset the cost of the restrictions).

As you point out, this is collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place. There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#56

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ribosometronome wrote: post #13
toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This suggests younger cohorts need robust efforts to protect their rights when continued curtailment is attempted by those who aren’t offering up sufficient compensation and recourse for the impacted. Can’t expect a generation to go through two economic catastrophes (GFC, Covid) without support and expect positive results. Things will just go from bad to worse.

Perhaps they should vote.

I'd argue that younger people are less likely to vote because they're less likely to find politicians who they want to vote for, so just telling them to vote largely misses the point.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#57

Post by InTheArena »

nugget wrote: post #31
djhaskin987 wrote: post #24

A waste management map from my county (Utah County in Utah) reveals that the three waste management districts that were servicing the two universities in the area were absolutely the red hot spots for covid-19. The two University presidents wrote a letter jointly telling the college students if they did not shape up The universities would be closed. Our governor applauded the letter and I don't think he was wrong. I…

At what point does the responsibility shift to the University Presidents if they can predict with confidence (and then confirm with data) that their students will never comply with their directives?

Kick the students out, keep their tuition. Be done with it.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#58

Post by MrStephenJ »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #52

In this case I think the ages are a distraction. This is clearly a violation of the constitution even given Covid due to it essentially banning a large section of the population from something as fundamental as visiting friends.

You've heard of this pandemic thing going on though, right? Perhaps they should have not put an age restriction on.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#59

Post by jtsiskin »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can e…

Does herd immunity work for COVID-19? I though we did not yet know whether infection leads to future immunity. Even better than 18 low-risk and 2 high risk is 2 low-risk and 2 high-risk. I think the intention here is to reduce infections until a vaccine comes out
Post reply on HN