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

181–190 of 273 posts

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

#181

Post by addicted »

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.

And it’s so easily refutable.

Stares like Florida and Texas, which has higher infections than NorthEastern states, had far lower death rates because of what we had learnt about the virus in the intervening months (just a few things we learnt, that ventilators were not very handy, there are several drugs that are more effective than ventilators, even if we are facing a shortage of medical grade PPE cloth masks themselves can be extremely useful, outdoors are much safer than indoors, etc).

The idea that we were always expecting the same number of deaths is nonsensical, but even if someone did believe that in the beginning of the pandemic, it’s been proven incorrect by now.

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

#182

Post by arethuza »

peterthehacker wrote: post #169
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.

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…

I only watched the start, but he describes the curve as having number of deaths as the Y axis - every description of "flattening the curve" that I have seen has number of cases as the Y axis. The point being to stop the number of cases overwhelming healthcare so that more people die - not just to rearrange when people who were going to die anyway actually die.

I don't know if that is a mistake or intentionally misleading - I would hope the former.

Note: I'm from the UK.

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

#183

Post by evgen »

8note wrote: post #170
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, it is an exceptionally poor comparison but your failure here is assuming that the person making this comment is acting in good faith. They are not. Downvote, ignore, and move on to discussions with people who are not political tools.

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

#184

Post by dillondoyle »

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #47
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?

My more cynical interpretation is that the school wanted to shift the onus onto the students, because more effective measures would have affected the schools ability to charge tuition at it’s full rate.

I don't think it's cynical. there is no way schools reasonably and realistically thought they could control COVID in a university environment. If they did they were negligent. It's 100% about cashing the checks before the withdrawal period. Who wants to pay $40,000 for online classes.

Young kids is completely different we aren't doing enough and there aren't a ton of other options but to open schools. But in person college for adults? not a necessity

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

#185

Post by sigotirandolas »

eesmith wrote: post #180
sigotirandolas wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that that the argument you made - i.e. that lower transmissibility aka. "flatten the curve" lowers total mortality in the SIR model - doesn't hold unless you assume that you can keep transmissibility down forever (and unless a vaccine or treatment comes out fast enough). That is, I'm not presenting a new argument, merely refuting your argument, over the SIR model you used, adding the assumption that transmissibility can't be kept down indefinitely - which I believe is very reasonable given what we are observing.

I believe it's the burden of the proof is on you to present a new, more rigorous model if you want to argue that slowing down transmission significantly lowers overall mortality - as the null hypothesis is that they are not associated.

On the last point, I am aware that under the SIR model, there's the possibility of overshoot, i.e. exceeding the minimum herd immunity threshold. My understanding is that this isn't a significant effect unless you have uncontrolled, explosive expansion, so that most people get infected simultaneously before others develop immunity and can therefore act as a barrier for herd immunity. I don't believe this is the situation right now given the numbers we are seeing.

That said, I believe that the more realistic future is that a vaccine or an effective treatment will be developed in the next months, and that will be the thing that will have made temporarily lowering transmissibility worth it. What I don't believe, because I haven't found any evidence for it that holds basic scrutiny, is that if no vaccine or effective treatment can be developed in a reasonable timeframe, then keeping the measures to slow down transmission as long as possible will have any significant effect on lower overall mortality.

EDIT: To make it clear so people do not misunderstand me, what I believe has no evidence is that without a timely vaccine or effective treatment, slowing down transmission beyond what is necessary to keep the health system from overloading is associated with lower overall mortality.

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

#186

Post by Gibbon1 »

eesmith wrote: post #160
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…

"expected to be the same" is simply not true. Even simple models like the one described at https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 (I point to the relevant part) shows that reducing the infection rate can also lead to fewer overall deaths.

UCSF's grand rounds last week discussed the observation that when there are outbreaks it appears that without masks the asymptomatic rate is 40% of those infected. With masks it appears to be 85%. Or to flip it around without masks 60% have symptoms. With masks only 15% do.

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

#187

Post by sieabahlpark »

8note wrote: post #165
lbeltrame wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Did handwashing stop being effective for washing anything off your hands? Sure you could be pedantic and mention some caustic material that reacts with water but that misses the point.

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

#188

Post by eesmith »

sigotirandolas wrote: post #185
eesmith wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that that the argument you made - i.e. that lower transmissibility aka. "flatten the curve" lowers total mortality in the SIR model - doesn't hold unless you assume that you can keep transmissibility down forever (and unless a vaccine or treatment comes out fast enough). That is, I'm not presenting a new argument, merely refuting your argument, over the SIR model you used, adding the assumption that trans…

The argument I make is that jb775's assertion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24586075 ("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") is wrong.

I say it's wrong because months ago I heard arguments that models predicted that lowering the curve could also reduce total mortality. And I linked to that video to give evidence that this was part of the general discussion months ago.

The fact that you disagree with that model, or argue that I need to give a stronger evidence for the current information we have, has no bearing on my point.

Eg, when you write "I don't believe this is the situation right now" - that statement is based on knowledge you have now, not knowledge that people had on "day 1".

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

#189

Post by itsoktocry »

peterthehacker wrote: post #169
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.

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…

>They don’t want people thinking that if action was taken by the U.S. gov sooner (Feb instead of Apr)..

Why do you single out "conservatives" when Democratic politicians were telling people during the Chinese Lunar New Year there was nothing to worry about?

This wasn't a partisan blunder.

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

#190

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN