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

101–110 of 273 posts

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

#101

Post by __blockcipher__ »

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.

I think a textualist and originalist view confirms your belief that it is unconstitutional. But as far as precedent goes, they can definitely get away with it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts (forced vaccination despite history of adverse reaction)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell (forced sterilization)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States (forced detention based off of race)

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

#102

Post by __blockcipher__ »

cbsks wrote: post #89
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...

The first amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble. Visiting friends is assembly, indeed the ordinance calls it a ban on “gatherings” explicitly.

However as I commented as a sibling comment to yours, SCOTUS precedent would hold that this is almost certainly allowed, despite my utter disgust for these backwards policies.

If you can forcibly sterilize someone, why not prevent them from gathering? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

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

#103

Post by __blockcipher__ »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #78
MrStephenJ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it's quite a bit more than a "perhaps". The order is clearly an attempt to target a politically disfavored age bracket; it would never occur to someone without specific animus against CU-Boulder students to write such a narrow rule.

We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases; a strategy of forcing young people inside, assuming it even worked, would increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity. But just as far as legal precedent, given this (evil) order is specifically in response to a spike in “cases” (they’re not cases they’re positive tests), it is more than justified under the reasoning used in Jacobson v Massachusetts. Unfortunately.

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

#104

Post by __blockcipher__ »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #62
InTheArena wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm just not sure what that has to do with it. If they're engaging in specific risky behavior, maybe it's justified to ban that risky behavior, but you can't just tell an entire age bracket they've been naughty and ground them for 2 weeks as punishment.

Don’t worry, precedent shows that it will be extended past two weeks. Remember “15 days to slow the spread”?

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

#105

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #100
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh believe me, I have found the authoritarians. I did not realize how many of my friends would callously and unquestioningly swallow the narrative and obey. (Many of my closest friends see through the narrative, partially because I wouldn’t shut up about it once I started reading the research and really realized how big of a mistake we’d made as a society) It’s kind of like how everyone thinks that they would have op…

I think invoking nazism is a surefire way to make sure people hate you. I get what you're saying though and agree.

What's clear to me after the pandemic: most people wouldn't think twice about completely destroying the fabric of normal society (perhaps irrevocably, while also violating fundamental rights) if they believe they're acting morally.

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

#106

Post by __blockcipher__ »

enjeyw wrote: post #96
marcell wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 out…

>There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose. I agree that "being able to gather with your friends" is a great thing, but I don't see why it's a sacred right that is "outrageous" to restrict no matter the consequences. Like a lot of these debates, this sort of things comes down to your personal beliefs in the relative imp…

It’s a sacred right because the right to peaceably assemble has long been protected under the bill of rights. The 1a was incredibly clear on this. And despite the wording, it applies to states too.

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

#107

Post by dragonwriter »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #103
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's quite a bit more than a "perhaps". The order is clearly an attempt to target a politically disfavored age bracket; it would never occur to someone without specific animus against CU-Boulder students to write such a narrow rule.

We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases; a strategy of forcing young people inside, assuming it even worked, would increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity. But just as far as legal precedent, given this (evil) order is specifically in response to a spike in “cases” (they’re not cases they’re positive tests), it is more than justified under the reasoning us…

> We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases;

Yes, we should.

> increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity.

This assumes that herd immunity is reached without a vaccine; the whole idea of controlling the spread is to reduce the degree to which herd immunity depends on people getting infected.

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

#108

Post by davesque »

__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…

Honestly this just sounds ridiculous, paranoid, and reactionary. I don't know what else to tell you. Yes, people who believe in making the minor personal sacrifice of self quarantining for the greater good, because they trust public health officials and scientific authority figures, are just mindless sheep and would be happy to ban laughter. If you're going to comment on a serious issue like this, make a serious argument. Otherwise, quit polluting the conversation.

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

#109

Post by __blockcipher__ »

bosswipe wrote: post #77
__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…

Are there any professional epidemiologists advocating for natural herd immunity as a goal? I'm not an expert but what I've seen is them saying the opposite. Here's one example https://www.islandpacket.com/news/coronavirus/article2458339...

Yes there are, they’re just not elevated because the powers that be like the epidemiologists that justify authoritarianism.

First of all, Anders Tegnell set Sweden’s policy and has been a brilliant voice of reason.

Check out Michael Levitt, Martin Kuelhoff, Jay Bhattachargee. There’s a lot more but I’m on mobile and need to get back to my computer first to dig through my notes.

Just be warned, if you actually research this issue - I’ve probably read 40 papers in the last 3 months, you might find it incredibly depressing, because it’s not even that we traded freedom for safety: we traded both away for nothing. Lockdown worsens COVID—19 mortality IMO, let alone the second order ramifications.

Herd immunity is a natural emergent phenomenon and is how ALL infectious diseases stop being a threat. Just remember herd immunity does not mean eradication, it just means no more exponential spread.

But tldr:

- Learn about immunological memory

- Learn about t cell cross reactivity: exposure to non-sars hcovs confers protection

- learn the simplistic herd immunity formula based off of the basic reproduction number, then learn how to think about heterogenity which makes the true HIT lower than the simplistic 1-1/R_0 implies

- learn that severe covid-19 kills vis pathological cytokine release syndrome and thus is an immunoregulatory disorder which logically would be worsened by lack of sunlight (vit d + nitric oxide), lack of sleep, lack of exercise, and excessive stress/fear, all results of lockdown

- read research literature on cloth masks published before the covid mass delusion ever happened; they are unanimous in showing that cloth masks make things worse

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

#110

Post by ardy42 »

mikem170 wrote: post #99
ardy42 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable It's less questionable when you look at it a different way: this is one of the segments of the population most likely to behave irresponsibly. It's a common observation that people in this age range often unjustifiably act like they're invincible. Those feelings can lead to bad results for others, like…

>this is one of the segments of the population most likely to behave irresponsibly #1, I don't think it's relevant that you think that segment of the population is irresponsible. We are talking about adults and taking away their freedom. I personally would rather see objective facts, not opinion. >people in this age range often unjustifiably act like they're invincible #2, I think you are wrong about their invincibil…

> #2, I think you are wrong about their invincibility in this case. 330 people under 25 died of covid as of August 20 [0] (most with comorbidities), out of a population of 104 million in the U.S. [1], that is 1 out of 346,000 (edit). This is not high on the list of dangers for that age group.

And maybe a drunk driver really is invincible because he has a very safe car that will protect him in any accident. Does that mean he should be allowed to drive drunk?

Post reply on HN