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

191–200 of 273 posts

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

#191

Post by itsoktocry »

ardy42 wrote: post #178
__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.

> 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 nec…

>Compare the US's curve to China's. If the US hadn't tried to half-ass it's measures

Are you advocating welding people in buildings?

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

#192

Post by thu2111 »

ddingus wrote: post #157
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.

The basis for it was reducing impact on health care systems, and to limit second, and future wave impact. Doing the first saved a lot of people because treatment was available. Secondary saves were non covid patients who could get service because capacity remained more available. Had we had better safety compliance, we would have reduced even more than we did and may have normalized things such that the wave upon us…

It actually didn't save anyone because there was never any risk of hospital overload when panic didn't set in: Sweden has one of the lowest ICU capacities in Europe and never saw hospital overload.

A few places did, but that's because they over-reacted and quarantined lots of their medical staff. That's the reaction not the virus.

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

#193

Post by yanks215 »

itsoktocry wrote: post #191
ardy42 wrote: post #178

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. 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 nec…

> Compare the US's curve to China's. If the US hadn't tried to half-ass it's measures Are you advocating welding people in buildings?

Indeed. And do we trust China’s numbers? I thought it was an unspoken fact that no one cites their data in legitimate media, since it is heavily manipulated.

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

#194

Post by yanks215 »

InTheArena wrote: post #45

I live in boulder. So the issue here is really that the university of Colorado has a number of students who are flagrantly ignoring masking rules. They also have a administration that opened the campus. Boulder is a very left leaning city, has a department of health that has decided to be extremely expansive with their mandate in boulder county. Churches and public schools are still closed. But there is a tricky issu…

> Boulder is a very left leaning city

> So the question becomes is this a violation of the bill of rights?

Seems less like an issue of being "left" and more "authoritarian". I wish there was a pithier word than "Auth" available for this. Some left-wingers still defend the 1st Amendment.

I hope the parties this decree impacts sue and bring this to the Supreme Court. The biggest issue with lockdowns now seems to be lawmakers' fear of making a deadly choice. We need a high court opinion to be clear on what government can and cannot do. IANAL but the language seems clear in 1A that there shall be no law restricting peaceable assembly.

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

#195

Post by yanks215 »

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.

Grandma can lock the door. So can nursing homes. What grandchild wants to hurt their grandparent anyway?

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

#196

Post by pvaldes »

thu2111 wrote: post #192
ddingus wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basis for it was reducing impact on health care systems, and to limit second, and future wave impact. Doing the first saved a lot of people because treatment was available. Secondary saves were non covid patients who could get service because capacity remained more available. Had we had better safety compliance, we would have reduced even more than we did and may have normalized things such that the wave upon us…

It actually didn't save anyone because there was never any risk of hospital overload when panic didn't set in: Sweden has one of the lowest ICU capacities in Europe and never saw hospital overload. A few places did, but that's because they over-reacted and quarantined lots of their medical staff. That's the reaction not the virus.

It does not matter so much if you die in the hospital or in your home, in the end you are still dead.

Deterring people to go to the hospitals, that are destined to save lifes, so they die at home instead, is not brilliant advice. They can (and will) sell it as a success, but Swedden still had much more people killed than their twin country Norway. The fact that those hospital rooms where not occupied despite having some elders in need of specialized care, is a failure, not a success.

> was never any risk of hospital overload

I think that many physicians in the planet would tell a very different history.

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

#197

Post by shadowprofile77 »

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…

A drunk driver is already knowingly drunk and driving one+ ton of metal around at lethally high speeds. Many of these young people, possibly even the vast majority of them, are not knowingly infected, but being treated as if they were all contagious and thus uniformly the equivalents of drunk drivers. Moreover, this is being based on very questionable cause and effect speculation about how much damage said young people are causing in terms of contagion.

Your analogy is just bad. Closer would be banning all drivers between a certain age rubric because possibly, maybe, some of them will get drunk and drive.

If anybody proposed that, it would be rightly derided, but here with politically motivated COVID panic based on still poorly understood evidence is somehow making this absurd restriction seem okay to an awful lot of people right here on HN.

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

#198

Post by throwmeaway_pls »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #186
eesmith wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Okay, okay, I’m as down with the science as anybody but those numbers sound a lot like cherry-picking. They also don’t jive with the info that’s trickled out suggesting that a plurality of infections are happening in the home, at restaurants, or while attending unmasked gatherings.

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

#199

Post by zorak »

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…

Great explanation of the issues here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7

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

#200

Post by lbeltrame »

zorak wrote: post #199
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…

Great explanation of the issues here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7

I'm not saying that masks don't work. But whether they are effective at reducing transmission and, if so, in what measure are open questions. The literature is at this point inconclusive[1]. Even the latest Lancet paper on masks and distancing attracted some criticism[2].

Of course,I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, as the BMJ post I quoted earlier says, instead of just saying "wear a mask", the best idea would also promote trials to verify their effectiveness (like the Danish trial). It's done all the time for drugs, why not masks?

[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-...

[2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5...

Post reply on HN