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

121–130 of 273 posts

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

#121

Post by ashtonkem »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #27
ashtonkem wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s often legal to discriminate by age (that is literally what the drinking, driving, and smoking age limits are), but I believe that the government must have a compelling interest in the restriction. This one seems extremely shaky to me, but as is common it’s likely that a lot of people will end up paying fines since they can’t afford to fight an order that may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

The problem is while technically Jacobson v Massachusetts is supposed to declare unreasonable restrictions unconstitutional, in practice it has allowed forced vaccination, forced sterilization, and forced detention. Oops!

This is completely unrelated to what I said, to the point where it’s genuinely confusing what you’re going on about.

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

#122

Post by __blockcipher__ »

ls612 wrote: post #117
davesque wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argu…

I mean if last December you had told people that we would issue stay at home orders and lay off 20 million people in the span of two weeks then keep all that stuff for six months they would have called you ridiculous and paranoid too. And yet here we are

Isn’t it telling that they described a complete ban on gatherings for an entire age range a “minor sacrifice”?

Really shows you how far the overton window shifted.

Also doubly ironic that I got called paranoid for talking about what is literally happening right now, not what I fear might happen.

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

#123

Post by dragonwriter »

ls612 wrote: post #117
davesque wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 argu…

I mean if last December you had told people that we would issue stay at home orders and lay off 20 million people in the span of two weeks then keep all that stuff for six months they would have called you ridiculous and paranoid too. And yet here we are

> I mean if last December you had told people that we would issue stay at home orders and lay off 20 million people in the span of two weeks then keep all that stuff for six months they would have called you ridiculous and paranoid too. And yet here we are

Much of the country never issued stay at home orders and almost no place has stay at home orders now, so they would have been right to call you inaccurate if perhaps paranoid isn't the right word, as we largely didn't do that, and where we did we didn't keep it for six months.

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

#124

Post by __blockcipher__ »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #105
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I worried the reference to Nazism would set people off. It comes off like Godwin’s law. But I didn’t make the comparison lightly, I literally mean that this type of blind obedience to authority is literally what allows factions like the Nazis to come to power.

In any case, I take solace in the fact that pretty much all of my comments in this thread are more or less equally downvoted :P

I’ve had to stop browsing HN as much during covid because people here tend to be very rabid about this issue. I am shocked how normalized the idea of forcible business closures and total bans on population movement for years (“until the vaccine”) has become. All to avoid a virus that spreads so well that even literal islands (NZ) have been unable to contain it, which has per the CDC a .65% IFR (I personally think the real figure is .3%), and which unlike Influenza does not kill children.

But I digress.

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

#125

Post by __blockcipher__ »

camel_Snake wrote: post #120
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

and it worked. it slowed the spread.

There is no evidence that the measures slowed the spread as compared to the natural dynamics of an infectious disease as immunity builds. Compare Sweden’s curve to New York’s for example.

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

#126

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

gorbachev15 wrote: post #90
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.

How much contact do you figure these university students have with the outside community? Or their families?

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

#127

Post by Balgair »

Dfol wrote: post #85
InTheArena wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CU has a lot of elder care and nursing homes near it. These people are in poor health to begin with. Covid is not doing them any favors.

I know this because I have family in those facilities that I have not been able to see since this all started. We (low risk) have been banned from these facilities (high risk) for months now.

We are lucky in that we are still somewhat healthy in regards to my family near CU. Many other families in these facilities are not and have lost loved ones due to the pandemic. The bans are not working as well as hoped, especially since the start of the school year.

The decisions of the CU community in relation to the larger Boulder community are contentious at the moment. Many parts of the larger Boulder community do not appreciate CU's 'cavalier' policies.

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

#128

Post by __blockcipher__ »

dragonwriter wrote: post #123
ls612 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if last December you had told people that we would issue stay at home orders and lay off 20 million people in the span of two weeks then keep all that stuff for six months they would have called you ridiculous and paranoid too. And yet here we are

> I mean if last December you had told people that we would issue stay at home orders and lay off 20 million people in the span of two weeks then keep all that stuff for six months they would have called you ridiculous and paranoid too. And yet here we are Much of the country never issued stay at home orders and almost no place has stay at home orders now, so they would have been right to call you inaccurate if perha…

We are literally talking about a county that just placed a total ban on gatherings for young people, and you’re arguing that it’s paranoid to talk about? How can it be paranoia to talk about what is literally happening? I’m not speculating about some slope we could slide down, I’m saying we’ve already slid down the slope.

I am genuinely perplexed here.

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

#129

Post by Balgair »

votepaunchy wrote: post #79
lizardking wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who receive social security actually vote, unlike the young.

Many towns make it difficult for college students to vote in local elections.

Colorado is not like that. You have mail in ballots in CO and can register along with a driver's license. You need only one piece of mail addressed to you to do so.

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

#130

Post by maxerickson »

__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…

A spike in cases without a corresponding increase in deaths or hospitalizations should be a good thing, but we treat it the same as having an equivalent number of centenarians get sick.

Lots of people that don't get hospitalized are reporting significant lingering symptoms. An effective vaccine appears to be ~months away. Do either of those things matter at all?

Post reply on HN