Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 415 posts

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#111

Post by arkitaip »

technofiend wrote: post #105
atty wrote: post #20

What are HNers planning to do for the holidays? We’re seriously considering not seeing anyone, not even parents, even though my SO has had COVID already (she works at a hospital and contracted it from COVID patients). Stories like this are the main reason. Even if no one at the party gets very ill, the chance of further spreading it to others seriously scares me.

I lost a family member this week. I did not attend the graveside service even though it was outside, which is anecdotally supposed to be lower risk than something indoors. The issue for me is I'm high risk combined with the fact it's possible someone could show and refuse to wear a mask. Even if everyone socially distanced and wore masks, I believe there's still a non-zero chance of transmission. Couldn't take the ri…

So sad for your loss.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#112

Post by __al__ »

goalieca wrote: post #54

There are “high-risk” people in care homes who want to visit their relatives for the holidays. To call these people selfish is way off the mark. Human beings are more than a simple statistic to optimize for political benefit. Perhaps it’s the politicians and others who are being selfish by imposing their will and desires. Viewpoints on liberty and consent aside, there doesn’t seem to be much of a strategy or timeline…

Couldn't agree more. You're asking 330 million Americans to give up some of their freedoms without any real plan or timeline; of course there is going to opposition.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#113

Post by aroch »

Pfhreak wrote: post #58
flavor8 wrote: post #17

It's a little hugged to death at the moment, but https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/ is a useful tool to show relatives who are thinking about social gatherings for the holidays.

Just a reminder, that tool likely underestimates the risk of covid. Seroprevalence data shows undercounting of up to 24 times (rather than the 5 or 10 this tool shows.) Also, this tool assumes you are only seeing people from your county. And humans are terrible at assessing compound risk. If the tool shows a 5% risk from a gathering, people will likely attend multiple events. ("Oh, it's only 5% to go to Thanksgiving.…

Lead dev here.

While you're not wrong that we might be under-estimating risk, I'll note that we do take into consideration seroprevalence in our calculations (so called, ascertainment bias). We provide estimates for two cases; 5x and 10x under-counting bias.

And you are right, that risk is additive (to a degree) if you go do multiple parties. And people are terrible at doing this sort of calculation. Our messaging, in our manuscript/press/social media has always been to limit gatherings of any size, and mask and gather outside as much as possible

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#114

Post by sequoia »

atty wrote: post #20

What are HNers planning to do for the holidays? We’re seriously considering not seeing anyone, not even parents, even though my SO has had COVID already (she works at a hospital and contracted it from COVID patients). Stories like this are the main reason. Even if no one at the party gets very ill, the chance of further spreading it to others seriously scares me.

I've got a turkey ordered, sugar pumpkins roasted (in preparation for pie), gonna get cranberries, potatoes & all the fixins, and stay home and have thanksgiving with my household only, no relatives, no neighbors, no friends.

I want to have a big blowout party next year this time with all my friends and family, but in order to do that, this year has to be different.

This won't be our whole lives, this is temporary. One measly holiday season, that's what we're being asked to compromise. Surely we can manage that?

Think of our grandparents in WWII (or other wars) would have said: "just cancelling get-togethers for one single Christmas? And you're complaining? Ha! How many years we had to ration foods, gasoline, rubber, keep the lights off, curfews, etc?"

I weep for our society if we lack the personal discipline and civic pride to be able to handle this relatively limited set back responsibly.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#115

Post by lm28469 »

think814 wrote: post #72
ceejayoz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just like drunk driving or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun.

What about non-drunk driving? You still have a non zero risk of killing pedestrians or other drivers/passengers. There's risk in everything we do, including for other people. What amount of risk is acceptable is a subjective choice.

Going to an event with dozens of other people during covid, especially in the current situation, is like driving on a highway full of walking people. It's not a "it might be dangerous" situation, it's a "it's definitely going to end bad" situation

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#116

Post by claudeganon »

drcross wrote: post #102
ceejayoz wrote: post #5

It also demonstrates why the "personal choice" stuff is BS here. I see a lot of folks going "why are you worried if you're following the rules yourself?", and yet... > None of the victims who lost their lives had attended the party.

Removing personal choice should sound alarm bells for anyone who has read Brave New World, 1984 or the Gulag Archipelago. If you permit me to stereotype the HN demographic here- you are probably reading this comment from the comfort of a warm apartment with running water and you're probably not hungry. Removing personal choice is an extremely dangerous idea where those reliable things that you take for granted start…

This post explains a lot about why many Americans are incapable to taking basic, rational steps to halt the progression of this disease. If we were more capable of reflection and putting others before ourselves, we wouldn’t have to invoke a bunch of irrelevant boogeyman to justify our shortsightedness.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#117

Post by throw1122334 »

otterley wrote: post #93
nostromo wrote: post #80

It’s interesting that the reporter here is shaming a wedding reception and not the long-term care facility where the deaths actually occurred. And not shaming for people for going to work with obvious Covid-19 symptoms, both to a prison and a long-term care facility . It’s clear the editors needed a story about family gatherings and not yet another story about old folks homes being high risk.

Why does the care facility deserve more blame?

Because it's literally their job to protect their patients from infection? It's not like we've just recently found out that the elderly are especially vulnerable to Covid-19.

If a website left their admin portal open, didn't set a password and then got hacked, would you put the blame for that on the script kiddie who did it, or on the website's security team?

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#118

Post by nradov »

arkitaip wrote: post #76
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Staying the f away from elderly in-laws with high-risk health conditions (diabetes, COPD). Definitely continuing that through Christmas. They are not fans of that decision though, and guilt-trip us on every FaceTime chat.

It's absolutely insane how indifferent some older people are to the risks of covid-19. Cognitive decline is a real thing but with covid-19, it's like they have lost their minds.

Older people aren't insane, they have different priorities. Some would prefer to see their grandchildren today because they know they might drop dead of a stroke tomorrow. There is more to life than avoiding death.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#119

Post by leetcrew »

tshaddox wrote: post #12
ceejayoz wrote: post #5

It also demonstrates why the "personal choice" stuff is BS here. I see a lot of folks going "why are you worried if you're following the rules yourself?", and yet... > None of the victims who lost their lives had attended the party.

The “personal choice” stuff was always BS even on the face of it. You can probably find some “libertarians” who will argue for removing all restaurant food safety regulations, for example, but I’m pretty sure even they are okay with banning drunk driving on shared roads.

actually I think you'd find that a lot of libertarians oppose DUI and similar things being criminal offenses. driving drunk exposes other people to unnecessary risk, but each instance of drunk driving does not necessarily harm someone. often libertarians prefer for such things to be handled via liability and private insurance.

Re: Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

#120

Post by irq11 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #5

It also demonstrates why the "personal choice" stuff is BS here. I see a lot of folks going "why are you worried if you're following the rules yourself?", and yet... > None of the victims who lost their lives had attended the party.

The flu kills tens of thousands of people a year - disproportionately many of whom are young, unlike SARS-CoV2 - and is a transmissible disease.

Driving kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people a year.

Where is the line when it’s OK to control peoples lives because you are afraid?

This is how authoritarianism starts.

Post reply on HN