Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by slg » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

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…

Stopping people from spreading a deadly disease doesn't make us North Korea. Not every slope is slippery. We can move further along a spectrum without being guaranteed to fall off a cliff.

I don't have the personal freedom to get drunk and drive my car down the highway because that puts the lives of everyone on the road in jeopardy. Spreading disease is the same thing. Your personal freedoms end when they start invading my personal freedom to continue living.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

arkitaip wrote: post #106

jayspell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are going on a year with COVID and the death rate is not what was advertised at the beginning. Everyone has to live their life, part of life is risk. Personal choice is BS? What in the literal hell!!! You want to take freedom away? You want to remain under house arrest fine, stay in your bubble, the nut house is a warm safe environment.

Not when your recklessness threatens my life and the lives of my elderly parents.

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by satysin » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

relieferator wrote: post #79

Why do people go to work when they're sick? I don't understand for the life of me, how someone thinks it's ok? If you don't feel well, your company (or money) is not worth your life or the lives of others. Stay home ffs.

Sometimes because they don't get sick pay (or it is reduced putting them in a [more] difficult financial position) or because for some disgusting reason people think they are "strong" and "hard working" for going into work when they are sick.

I've worked with people who were proud of coming into work with a hacking cough and temperature. They would take their temperature at their desk and announce it as if they were doing something amazing.

Even worse is when I've worked for managers who during your review compare you to those people saying things like you should make more effort to reduce your time off sick (even if under the average yearly sick days) or make more effort to come in when you're just feeling a "bit under the weather".

It is a terrible attitude but it is extremely common the world over sadly.

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

#134

Post by 3JPLW » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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.

This is why speed limits are prudent.

This is why masks and gathering limits are prudent.

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

#135

Post by drc37 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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.

Everything going forward as usual. We will be having a few of my siblings and their families over. Some of us have already had Covid others haven't. There is a known risk but one we would gladly take to be together.

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

#136

Post by xur17 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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.…

It's also worth noting that this tool shows the risk of at least one other person in attendance having covid before going, not the risk of contracting covid at the event.

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

#137

Post by _Microft » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

dfsegoat wrote: post #94

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.

>> or twitching your trigger finger when someone just happens to be in front of the gun. Poor example, as Firearms safety 101 would prevent this: - always point weapon in safe direction - finger off trigger until ready to fire - know your target and what is behind it - treat every weapon as if it were loaded. https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

Of course the firearms safety rules are what they are - there is just this guy who thinks they do not apply to him.

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

#138

Post by tomp » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

arkitaip wrote: post #106

jayspell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are going on a year with COVID and the death rate is not what was advertised at the beginning. Everyone has to live their life, part of life is risk. Personal choice is BS? What in the literal hell!!! You want to take freedom away? You want to remain under house arrest fine, stay in your bubble, the nut house is a warm safe environment.

Not when your recklessness threatens my life and the lives of my elderly parents.

Your choices and decisions are what threatens your life. If you don't want to be exposed to Covid, don't leave your home. I don't see why others shouldn't walk around / party, if they're themselves willing to take on the risk of infection.

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

#139

Post by mmastrac » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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…

First of all, your extra-low IFR is trying to draw a false equivalency between COVID-19 and less-fatal diseases like the flu. It is more like 0.5%-1% (if not more), and the IFR once you hit 65+ is 1.5% and rises quickly.

So when a pandemic is hitting us and our collective personal responsibility is failing, our only choice is to roll over and get sick?

There are plenty of options to feed those who are going hungry due to COVID, but you should look at who is throwing up roadblocks to assistance.

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

#140

Post by protoman3000 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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.

How can we live good if there exists a significant amount of people rejecting seatbelts?

We need to face the reality that on average people make bad choices which leads to substantial negative outcomes for any group. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic again confirms empirically that humans on average don’t have self-responsibility.

How can philosophical ideas that are founded on principles such as “humans have self-responsibility” then still deem credibility for any larger group of people?

Why do we need laws that mandate seatbelts? Won’t people wear them by themselves? And if not, what does that mean to the whole house of cards of Liberalism?