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

171–180 of 273 posts

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

#171

Post by aww_dang »

davesque wrote: post #153
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, completely out of context and without any implied qualifications, such a ban would be too much. But that's not what we're dealing with here, is it? This is not something that will remain in effect for years to come and I think any reasonable person understands that. Yes, I do consider a period of a few weeks or maybe even a couple months of self quarantine a small sacrifice compared with the alternative as I und…

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22new+normal%22

>"But this doesn’t mean we should go back to the ‘old normal’."

https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/info...

>"There's nothing new about the 'new normal'. Here's why"

>"Normal' has not worked for a majority of the world's population, so why would it start working now? We should use our discomfort to forge a new paradigm instead."

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/theres-nothing-new-ab...

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

#172

Post by mchusma »

This group which is at so little risk being targeted in such an aggressive way is horrifying. It's really scary to think that I'm the US, without legislative voting, a state can ban people from socializing.

We need to strip all emergency powers now. These were meant for times like earthquakes, where legislatures don't have time to act. It's been 7 months now, that is no longer an excuse. I think a 30 day cap is generous enough.

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

#173

Post by sigotirandolas »

ls612 wrote: post #114
Cola wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't ending them, though. Just prohibiting them. It seems comically naive to expect that the population that faces virtually zero downside and has the greatest propensity for risky behavior would obey such an order.

If you expel or jail a few to make an example it would probably cow the rest. (In case anyone isn’t certain, I do not support this line of thinking. But since authoritarianism is fashionable nowadays I fully expect it to happen)

This certainly doesn't seem to work when it comes to drugs.

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

#174

Post by FpUser »

dylz wrote: post #18
FpUser wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 21 I was out of university with master's degree in physics, working full time and providing for my family (however small) and making all kinds of life choices. Where would I be in your book?

An extreme rarity, probably.

I was not the only graduate ;) There were many others like myself. In the old and long gone Soviet Union some people (myself included) went to University straight after school and at that time one would finish school at 17 (sometimes 16).

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

#175

Post by m463 »

mchusma wrote: post #172

This group which is at so little risk being targeted in such an aggressive way is horrifying. It's really scary to think that I'm the US, without legislative voting, a state can ban people from socializing. We need to strip all emergency powers now. These were meant for times like earthquakes, where legislatures don't have time to act. It's been 7 months now, that is no longer an excuse. I think a 30 day cap is gener…

They come home and bring it to grandma.

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

#176

Post by ardy42 »

clinta wrote: post #162
ardy42 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> #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.

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

That's a straw man: no one is proposing banning all gatherings forever. Drunk people are banned from driving when they're drunk, not when they're sober. People like these students will have to suffer some analogous restrictions during this pandemic, especially in hot spots like Boulder, but those restrictions will stop when the virus is under control.

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

#177

Post by m0zg »

Precisely the age range which is _not dying from COVID_. Like at all, almost. They should be prohibiting gatherings of those 50 and up, of any size, and offering free grocery deliveries and assistance to those 60 and up so that they don't have to get out of the house. Instead, we get idiotic crap like this.

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

#178

Post by ardy42 »

__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.

> 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.

Compare the US's curve to China's. If the US hadn't tried to half-ass it's measures (at the personal to the national level), we wouldn't still be arguing about them because the virus would be under control and they wouldn't be necessary anymore.

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

#179

Post by yadco »

m463 wrote: post #175
mchusma wrote: post #172

This group which is at so little risk being targeted in such an aggressive way is horrifying. It's really scary to think that I'm the US, without legislative voting, a state can ban people from socializing. We need to strip all emergency powers now. These were meant for times like earthquakes, where legislatures don't have time to act. It's been 7 months now, that is no longer an excuse. I think a 30 day cap is gener…

They come home and bring it to grandma.

Maybe let grandma decide for herself

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

#180

Post by eesmith »

sigotirandolas wrote: post #167
eesmith wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like I said, "simple infection model (the SIR model)".

Which more rigorous models have the area under the curve as roughly the same, as you describe it?

I believe any model which has herd immunity, where personal immunity comes after a period of infection, must have the possibility of overshooting the minimum heard immunity density when the infection rate is high enough. As in the SIR model.

Lower the infection rate and there's lower overshoot.

Post reply on HN