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

161–170 of 273 posts

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

#161

Post by eesmith »

kjeetgill wrote: post #155
camel_Snake wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken... Could you provide some sort of source for this? This seems completely illogical as our goal has never been heard immunity.

Not to take sides, but that was the basis of the whole flatten the curve thing — or how it was presented to most people atleast.

In this demonstration of a simple infection model (the SIR model) you can see this worked out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6nLfCbAzgo&feature=youtu.be... that "not only do you flatten the curve, you also stop everyone from getting the disease in the long run."

A bit later they point out that flattening the curve increases the chance of getting to a vaccine or viable treatment; which is another way to reduce the total number of infections.

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

#162

Post by clinta »

ardy42 wrote: post #110
mikem170 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

So should we ban all driving? Because that is the analogous reaction to prohibiting any gatherings.

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

#163

Post by athriren »

InTheArena wrote: post #57
nugget wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this was the unstated purpose of calling all the students back to campus in the first place. if there is an outbreak on campus or in the community, just blame the students—not the adults running society.

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

#164

Post by lbeltrame »

atomi wrote: post #115
jb775 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is , expected to be the same no matter what actions taken....And the entire point of lockdowns was to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It's so frustrating watching Democrat leaders (Jill H…

> People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken This is so wrong. One has to really wonder what motivates you. Mask wearing alone, a simple action, dramatically lowers predicted infection rates

There is yet no evidence that explicitly ties the use of a face mask to lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A lot of the published evidence is either inconsistent, or indirect (measurement of droplets, but that doesn't take physical barriers like nose and mouth, or the viral load required to overcome the non adaptive immune system). In fact, it has been argued that non pharmacological interventions should be evaluated with better evidence [1].

A Danish clinical trial enrolling 3000 people will probably give some more concrete answers.

OTOH, hand washing and distance are definitely useful to reduce spread.

P.S. Feel free to state your disagreement explicitly instead of downvoting.

[1] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/08/28/margaret-mccartney-we-n...

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

#165

Post by 8note »

lbeltrame wrote: post #164
atomi wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken This is so wrong. One has to really wonder what motivates you. Mask wearing alone, a simple action, dramatically lowers predicted infection rates

There is yet no evidence that explicitly ties the use of a face mask to lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A lot of the published evidence is either inconsistent, or indirect (measurement of droplets, but that doesn't take physical barriers like nose and mouth, or the viral load required to overcome the non adaptive immune system). In fact, it has been argued that non pharmacological interventions should be eval…

Is there clinical evidence for handwashing and distancing is effective? Study with a nice chart saying the benefit for each additional foot?

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

#166

Post by aww_dang »

jb775 wrote: post #113
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…

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is , expected to be the same no matter what actions taken....And the entire point of lockdowns was to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It's so frustrating watching Democrat leaders (Jill H…

This makes more sense with the premise that curtailing citizen's rights and greater central planning has always been appealing to some. Evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns or lack thereof is incidental. "Climate Lockdowns" are already being proposed.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/09/23/commentary/w... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-real...

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

#167

Post by sigotirandolas »

eesmith wrote: post #161
kjeetgill wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to take sides, but that was the basis of the whole flatten the curve thing — or how it was presented to most people atleast.

In this demonstration of a simple infection model (the SIR model) you can see this worked out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6nLfCbAzgo&feature=youtu.be... that "not only do you flatten the curve, you also stop everyone from getting the disease in the long run." A bit later they point out that flattening the curve increases the chance of getting to a vaccine or viable treatment; which is another way to reduce th…

The problem with that is that in real life transmissibility is not a fixed parameter you can keep down forever. People eventually get lockdown fatigue and/or realize the opportunity cost is not worth it for them. So the area under the curve is roughly the same in the long run. That is, unless we can get a vaccine or effective treatment fast enough.

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

#168

Post by dragonwriter »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #128
dragonwriter wrote: post #123

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 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.

> 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?

No, I'm saying that the claim specifically made in the grandparents comment about general stay at home orders maintained for 6+ months was false (not paranoid), because much of the country never had a stay-at-home order, and almost all actual stay-at-home orders that were issued were lifted. Had we actually had a hard lockdown nationwide for even a fairly short period of time, we might still be seeing the kind second wave some places are seeing, but we wouldn’t still be in an epic disaster of a first wave, and we probably wouldn’t be seeing the kind of extreme-but-isolated orders you are complaining about now.

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

#169

Post by peterthehacker »

camel_Snake wrote: post #119
jb775 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is , expected to be the same no matter what actions taken....And the entire point of lockdowns was to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It's so frustrating watching Democrat leaders (Jill H…

> People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken... Could you provide some sort of source for this? This seems completely illogical as our goal has never been heard immunity.

I’d guess jb775 saw a clip with a conservative lawmaker or pundit making this point. It’s been floating around the news lately. Take a look at the recent argument between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci[0]. Essentially republicans are trying to push this idea that the number of infections and deaths from COVID-19 are inevitable and any government intervention can only impact the timing. In other words the area under the curve is constant.

They don’t want people thinking that if action was taken by the U.S. gov sooner (Feb instead of Apr) we would have dramatically fewer deaths and cases, which is probably a more scientifically accurate view but with all the data being so new this debate is ripe for political distortion.

[0] https://youtu.be/Yk2p2oyXxTc

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

#170

Post by 8note »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #125
camel_Snake wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is Sweden a good comparison though? Just because the government did not impose the measures doesn't mean that the same thing didn't happen
Post reply on HN