Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by stripline » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #215

__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.

The Corona Cult is going to baselessly discredit your ideas which are valid and accurate because they have no logical response. Please vote in November! Keep the fanatics from committing additional human rights violations!

He is just claiming no evidence and cherry picking data. I can just as easily point to other countries that have limited their Covid cases to single digits. Do we really need a controlled experiment to prove to you that wearing masks limit the spread of an airborne virus? That is common sense.

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

#222

Post by stripline » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #98

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a public health issue. What about the rights of people that are vulnerable. Why would public policy risk fatality of the vulnerable population over restricted movement of a few targeted populace in an emergency. The reality is that compared to March New York city in September has quashed the virus, per data.

Yes, COVID is basically over in New York. You know why? Because it passed the real herd immunity threshold. (Simplistic models overestimate the true HIT due to not accounting for heterogeneity across the dimensions of genetic susceptibility, genetic transmissibility, and social contacts). Ironically, the hysteria is partially why New York’s IFR is the highest in the world; fears of hospital overrun scenarios that nev…

> fears of hospital overrun scenarios that never materialized

You sure about that? I had friends who are doctors there tell me back during the peak (~April) they had run out of anesthesia and had to intubate patients without it.

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

#223

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

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…

The constant surprised_pikachu.jpg is what really gets me. We know what happens when you re-open businesses. More people get sick. It's totally predictable! Yet the media breathlessly reports how shocked everyone is at the "surge" or "second wave" every time a region tries to re-open. And, regions keep trying it! "We're going to carefully re-open bars and nail salons and see what happens..." says the government. Without mask use and social distancing, it is totally predictable what is going to happen, morons!

[For some unknown reason, HN doesn't let me post any more today, so replying as an edit]

Excellent point about having exit criteria. Just to pick a state at random, Pennsylvania [1] explains their criteria pretty well. They're looking for less than 50 new confirmed cases per 100,000 population reported in the previous 14 days. Which seems way too many to me, but what do I know, I'm not an epidemiologist. These criteria need to be open to change if they're wrong, though. If they notice cases increasing after re-opening, they need to 1. close back down, and 2. adjust their criteria downward so not to make the same mistake again.

1: https://www.governor.pa.gov/process-to-reopen-pennsylvania/

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

#224

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

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…

Collective punishment based on age can never be morally justified regardless of the results.

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

#225

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #168

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Not to mention, all of the so-called stay-at-home orders were totally half-assed and unenforced. They might as well have been called "stay-at-home suggestions". If this one in Boulder is enforced like the rest of the country's "orders" it will be treated as a joke.

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

#226

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:45 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #223

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…

The constant surprised_pikachu.jpg is what really gets me. We know what happens when you re-open businesses. More people get sick. It's totally predictable! Yet the media breathlessly reports how shocked everyone is at the "surge" or "second wave" every time a region tries to re-open. And, regions keep trying it! "We're going to carefully re-open bars and nail salons and see what happens..." says the government. With…

How long are you expecting businesses to remain closed? What are the exit criteria? How many people are being infected in nail salons?

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

#227

Post by InTheArena » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

yanks215 wrote: post #194

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 law…

Both the left extreme and the right extreme are authoritarian.

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

#228

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 3:58 PM UTC

yanks215 wrote: post #193

itsoktocry wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Not particularly, but even if China undercounted by 10x, it's still way ahead of places like Sweden and the US on a per capita basis.

I have relatives there, and their lives are basically back to normal and have been for months. The bungling Western (especially American) response has unfortunately been a huge propaganda win for the Communist party. They're thanking every American asshole who loudly refuses to things as simple as wearing a mask for making them look good.

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

#229

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

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?

> Are you advocating welding people in buildings?

No, that's a straw man. It's like saying that someone who advocates for an effective police force is also advocating for that force to recklessly kill suspects.

What I am advocating for is mandatory pandemic control measures that are strict enough to work and applied consistently until the job is done, and a population that's willing consistently take efforts to protect the common good rather than complain and resist when things aren't maximally convenient to them personally. That applies not just to first-order responses, but to second and third order responses as well.

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

#230

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

jtsiskin wrote: post #59

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can e…

Does herd immunity work for COVID-19? I though we did not yet know whether infection leads to future immunity. Even better than 18 low-risk and 2 high risk is 2 low-risk and 2 high-risk. I think the intention here is to reduce infections until a vaccine comes out

The best evidence we have indicates that most patients who recover from a SARS-CoV-2 infection will retain a significant level of immunity for at least several years, just like with other coronaviruses. So yes herd immunity would work from an epidemiological perspective. Whether it's preferable to the alternatives is a political question.

https://www.jimmunol.org/content/early/2020/09/03/jimmunol.2...