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

131–140 of 273 posts

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

#131

Post by __blockcipher__ »

ashtonkem wrote: post #121
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry for not making the connection clear enough. You mentioned a “compelling interest”; this is the same logic that was decided in Jacobson v Massachusetts which is the foundation for US case law regarding this topic.

My point is that this does fall under that reasoning.

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

#134

Post by Balgair »

rdtwo wrote: post #38

Why not just gather in the neighboring city?

The old saying is that Boulder is seven square miles between the mountains and reality. You can buy passports on Pearl St. to get into Boulder. It's kinda it's own little world. The next town over is Louisville, which has pretty much nothing for a 18-22 year old to do. Or Longmonth, which also has pretty much nothing to do. Denver is ~30 min away depending on traffic.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boulder,+CO/@39.949631,-10...

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

#135

Post by __blockcipher__ »

enjeyw wrote: post #112
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me, a "right" should be considered on the basis of what it actually provides to people. This might be an unpopular opinion that I hold as a non-american, but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. I'd be curious to know your take. Is it because you uphold that "decisions should be made based precedent" as being critical for…

The Constitution is the source code of our country. It literally describes what rights we have (edit: it is not an exhaustive list to be clear), thus why we have a document called “the Bill of Rights” which is a set of constitutional amendments that enumerate a set of rights that the government does not have the power to infringe.

So, respectfully, I actually see your confusion as a non-American; most countries don’t treat the concept of a constitution with any seriousness.

> but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right.

That is, again, literally how it works. For example, that is why here in the United States it is not illegal to deny that the holocaust happened, whereas in Germany or France you will get fined and thrown in jail.

Specifically Supreme Court decisions rely on precedent from previous cases; this is called Stare Decisis. Precedent is only to be overturned when clearly the wrong call was made (for example the SCOTUS decision permitting Japanese internment camps)

—-

To summarize, the genesis of America lies in the notion that we have inalienable rights that are not granted by the government but rather given by God (I think of this metaphorically since I don’t believe in a god). Thus the constitution just makes it explicit to the government that we have these rights and always did; as opposed to the government graciously extending these rights.

So in conclusion, despite the implication of your “Quran” question...yes, it really is a sacred document. Not just bevause it is the source code for our country, but because the ideas contsined within it are revolutionary and beautiful. For evidence of how revolutionary they are, I submit your (good-faith) incredulity with the entire concept :P

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

#136

Post by maxerickson »

dx87 wrote: post #67
staticassertion wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Persons within the age range of 18-22 are not a protected class, so this does seem legal. Effective, maybe? I assume this is based on the idea that this age group is acting as super spreaders. Ethical? That's a judgment call. I say yes, personally.

I don't see how it isn't agains the 1st amendment right to peaceably assemble. I could see it if it was a blanket lock down, maybe even on just 18-22 year olds, but it still has carve outs for going to school or work. Maybe someone with more experience could chime in, but I don't see how the government restricting how people can gather is constitutional. Only being allowed to participate in government approved activi…

If "government approved" is the line you are worried about, take a look at driver's licenses and food selling.

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

#137

Post by __blockcipher__ »

maxerickson wrote: post #130
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The short answer is that the supposed “long-term impacts” aren’t really real. I recommend reading the literature on SARS-CoV-1, the “original SARS”, which spreads less easily but is far more severe. A normal SARS-1 case is like a severe SARS-2 (“covid”) case.

With SARS-1, there can be lingering fatigue and minor cognitive deficits for a few months post infection, but radiological abnormalities of the lungs, etc clear away within months and are certainly gone at the 1 year mark.

The evidence in SARS-2 is incredibly weak and especially for those who are asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic the chance of lasting harm is essentially zero. Remember that the real damage occurs from the immune response, so if you have no symptoms you cannot have damage. The notion being promulgated of having totally asymptomatic COVID-19 and then randomly showing organ damage (heart, lungs etc) is absurd.

Finally for mathematical purposes we need to consider long-term damage - which again just doesn’t really happen - as not as bad as a death. So we can still work it into the math just fine, whether you want to call it a tenth of a death or half or whatever.

—-

Oh finally, quick point that vaccines are not without risk either. Go read the data on the Moderna trials. Or the history of rushed-out vaccines that caused paralysis (it was either for swine flu or avian flu, I forget which)

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

#138

Post by [deleted] »

the_benno wrote: post #40

As a 27-year-old CU PhD student and staff member, I just want to say that this is a welcome development. The university recklessly opened this fall without adequate security measures in place over the loud protests of faculty and staff, and (surprised_pikachu.jpg) now Boulder is facing a massive outbreak clearly attributable to campus' opening [1]. My friends, colleagues, and community are being directly endangered b…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by maxerickson »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #135
enjeyw wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, a "right" should be considered on the basis of what it actually provides to people. This might be an unpopular opinion that I hold as a non-american, but I don't really see "because it was decided so a long time ago" as particularly good reason to ordain something as a sacred right. I'd be curious to know your take. Is it because you uphold that "decisions should be made based precedent" as being critical for…

The Constitution is the source code of our country. It literally describes what rights we have (edit: it is not an exhaustive list to be clear), thus why we have a document called “the Bill of Rights” which is a set of constitutional amendments that enumerate a set of rights that the government does not have the power to infringe. So, respectfully, I actually see your confusion as a non-American; most countries don’t…

The constitution is written to enjoin the government from infringing on certain rights.

To say that it describes the rights we have is a fundamental misunderstanding. It even says as much, in the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I mean, you could at least try to argue more clearly, and not trip over something so obvious.

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

#140

Post by cbsks »

jb775 wrote: post #118
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.

Not to mention this decision was likely made by the UN-ELECTED Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Jill Hunsaker Ryan. I did a quick search of her background and she was almost indicted for falsifying Covid death data to inflate the total number of deaths[1]. Once she was forced to accurately report the numbers, the number of deaths magically dropped significantly. Won't hear…

I also did a quick search. Apparently the CDC required the CDPHE to report the total number of people who died while having COVID-19, which the department did. Then they switched to reporting the number of deaths caused by COVID-19, AND the number of deaths of people who had COVID-19. That caused confusion which led to the threat of criminal charges.

https://koanewsradio.iheart.com/content/2020-05-15-gov-polis...

> Won't hear about this in the news!

Huh? I found lots of news articles about it.

Post reply on HN