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

81–90 of 273 posts

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

#81

Post by mikem170 »

DetroitThrow wrote: post #46
eplanit wrote: post #34

The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy (…

>The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy…

>So the suggestion of ending youth public gatherings at a university seems in-line with the science

I didn't get that out of the article you referred to. The article said that students mingling should be assumed inevitable:

"They're going to wander. They're going to visit each other. They're going to go into town. They're going to sneak off and have a party. This is what they do."

And that sick students should be grouped together, away from healthy students:

"Some colleges have the capability of a dorm or a couple of floors of a dorm where they could keep people who are infected,"

Sounds reasonable, better than sending them home, given the odds.

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

#82

Post by senthil_rajasek »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #49
senthil_rajasek wrote: post #36

The article does not say anything about what if any data was used to make this decision. Conflating this as a human rights issue as some commenters have tried to on this thread is a dangerous trend. In other cities, like La crosse, WI for instance college campuses tended to be the hotspots. The same was true of senior housing a few months back. So I am leaning towards the public health officials targeting this based…

It’s a human rights issue regardless of the data, and your assertion that “the virus needs to be quashed” goes against reality. We’re not practicing containment in the US, therefore this virus WILL diffuse through the population. All we can choose is how many lives we want to destroy before we accept that reality. (By the way, even if we were practicing containment - which we’re not - it would still eventually spread…

It is a public health issue. What about the rights of people that are vulnerable. Why would public policy risk fatality of the vulnerable population over restricted movement of a few targeted populace in an emergency.

The reality is that compared to March New York city in September has quashed the virus, per data.

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

#83

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

It's pretty disgusting the amount of additional powers we're allowing the government to take during this pandemic.

You might may something to the affect "desperate times call for desperate measures," but have no doubt, the next 'emergency' is right around the corner. Once you give government power, it's quite difficult to take it back. People will be toeing the lines for years on what an emergency is, until it simply becomes the norm.

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

#84

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

The young can never outvite the old because the old are 65-90, but the young are 18-25 at best. The latter cohort is by definition several times smaller.

Why are 16 year old 'too immature' to vote by 90 year olds eligible? You can vote even if you are mentally ill.

Do schoolchildren have no interests at all that deserve at least some representation? Imagine we had a few representatives in parloament talking about their issues, that would probably improve discourse.

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

#85

Post by Dfol »

InTheArena wrote: post #63
Dfol wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. 18-22 year old's in college are self-contained for the most part. They're around people their own age, not known for intermingling with senior citizens etc.

In Boulder the area that students living off campus is called the hill. It happens to be surrounded by the most affluent (read old) portion of Boulder. I’ve seen gangs of students walking up and down Pearl Street with no masks. The students are not isolating

That's even more ridiculous.

The people in your scenario that are most at risk are roaming the same area freely, so the solution is to ban the least at risk people?

The same people who are the least likely to follow the prohibition?

If you want to protect the most at-risk people and the only way to do it is to divide the high-risk & low-risk the far more logical route would to ban the high-risk people.

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

#86

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #43
mherdeg wrote: post #35

Here's some more coverage: https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-ban-on-... Here's the text of the order: https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/publ... The text says in part: ""Gathering: more than one individual coming together or being physically near each other for any shared and common purpose, including socializing or participating in any activity together including but not limit…

> They've excluded people at work, so I suppose this allows people in this age range to provide childcare for essential workers, work in health care or at grocery stores, etc. How kind of our benevolent overlords. We can still partake in the economic machinery! Just none of that pesky “living your life” stuff. I’m surprised they haven’t banned laughter yet. It spreads SARS-CoV-2-laden respiratory droplets like nothin…

Roseanne Barr and Tim Dillon did a podcast recently and there was a part I loved so much, “at this point anyone who can’t laugh - you gotta go.”

You want to find the authoritarians among us? Find the people who are unable to laugh and make it known that no one else should.

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

#87

Post by ClumsyPilot »

InTheArena wrote: post #66
just-juan-post wrote: post #2

Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?

Replace it with Christian. Churches have been shut down for the duration in many parts of Colorado including boulder.

Clearly closing church is not the same as banning all gatherings of christians, in the same manner as chosing pubs is not a ban on drinking

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

#88

Post by InTheArena »

mikem170 wrote: post #81
DetroitThrow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy…

>So the suggestion of ending youth public gatherings at a university seems in-line with the science I didn't get that out of the article you referred to. The article said that students mingling should be assumed inevitable: "They're going to wander. They're going to visit each other. They're going to go into town. They're going to sneak off and have a party. This is what they do." And that sick students should be gro…

Cu did that, and exhausted all of the reserved space. They been expanded to Additional space and are mostly exhausted there.

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

#89

Post by cbsks »

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.

“Visiting friends” is not protected by the US Constitution.

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...

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

#90

Post by gorbachev15 »

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…

Has the apparent spike in cases led to spikes in case rate for non-college students? Has it led to an increase in hospitalizations? Or do we need to "wait two weeks" for that? It's an extremely low risk population, it's very unlikely any of them will be harmed. As you said, they're adults, perhaps they are taking a calculated risk.
Post reply on HN