Americans are rethinking where they want to live • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#641

Post by sershe » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 3:42 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #618

sershe wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the COVID has really opened my eyes to how little I need walkability. My preferences completely flipped from "I want walkscore 75+ and ideally 90+" to "I want walkscore to be I used to be very pro-transit and walking (didn't even learn to drive till 30), and even as I was not walking as much just before COVID, I reflexively remained so. When most things closed nearby (so we went out less and finally discovere…

I certainly drove more during the pandemic (though this may have been because I stopped using Lyft due to safety concerns), but I never stopped appreciating living in a walkable neighborhood. Certainly openings were a bit spotty here and there, but having a small grocery nearby, as well as a few restaurants with outdoor seating, was a boon to our mental health while otherwise stuck at home most of the time. We got fo…

But "small places nearby" were also closed... that is what made me realize how little I need them. Having to drive to more distant places, something I previously might not have preferred, turned out to be much more convenient, something I didn't expect... try it ;)

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#642

Post by glial » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #603

glial wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... > Asymptomatic cases had a significant but lower secondary attack rate when compared to symptomatic individuals. Curious what your searches look like, because that took me like 2 seconds to find.

That's one link vs several I gave you. Are you implying that your science is better than mine? Why? What standard proves this? All of the links I gave you are peer reviewed studies. You've proved nothing. I'll choose my studies over yours. You're just bloviating cult like adherence to "the science".

> Then you should easily be able to back that up with data. So please provide it.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#643

Post by glial » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #605

glial wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-reports-third-covid-19...

The title of that article should be enough to let you know how outside the norm that is. Do yourself a favor and look up leading causes of child death.

> Can you provide an example

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#644

Post by michaelcampbell » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

agensaequivocum wrote: post #548

michaelcampbell wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that doesn't kill kids While the numbers are low, it is not 0. This is, sadly, categorically untrue.

All of aspects of life has risk. Saying that covid is dangerous to children is pure fear mongering. Compared to basically everything else, virtually no children have died.

Yes, compared to supernovas nuclear bombs are virtually nothing.

I was merely pointing out that "it does not kill kids" is just not true, which it isn't.

Re: Americans are rethinking where they want to live

#645

Post by michaelcampbell » Sat, Dec 18, 2021, 10:35 PM UTC

CountDrewku wrote: post #297

michaelcampbell wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that doesn't kill kids While the numbers are low, it is not 0. This is, sadly, categorically untrue.

Can you provide an example of a child in that age range dying when without a secondary illness that made them high risk? All the examples I've seen are children with cancer or something else. The percentages still don't pan out to having such massive restrictions on children that young.

> Can you provide an example of a child in that age range dying when without a secondary illness that made them high risk? All the examples I've seen are children with cancer or something else.

Can you assert that without them getting covid, they would have died as quickly?

> The percentages still don't pan out to having such massive restrictions on children that young.

Which was never my assertion.