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

#141

Post by president » 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.

No, it demonstrates overwhelming information asymmetry from what the general population is learning from mainstream media vs what the actual stats are. If you look at the actual CDC [1] COVID death count numbers, it is not much more than the annual flu death count. I don't fault the general public for this, it's the media trying to instill unnecessary fear among people.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

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

#142

Post by YooLi » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

"Despite having obvious signs of illness, the Maplecrest employee went to work that day, and the next."

"The York County Jail employee showed up for an eight-hour shift despite having COVID-19 symptoms. It was the first of five consecutive days of work for the employee..."

I see the main problem not as the wedding, because an infection can frankly happen anywhere, but as a failure to accommodate people who feel they can't miss work even though they are ill (need the money, fear repercussions, policy that limits sick days, etc.). I don't believe the individuals intentionally exposed others, but felt they had no other choice.

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

#143

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:16 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…

What I don't understand is why people don't make better personal choices?

It's very strange that people won't just wear a mask (with it over their mouth and nose). There might be some tiny fraction of people that have a real issue with it, but not anywhere the number of people that feel the need to loudly object to it.

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

#144

Post by joeax » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

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?

If the care facility is housing at-risk patients, they should have strict protocols in place for visitors. Shaming a wedding here seems irresponsible by the media considering these people could have picked up Covid anywhere like Walmart.

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

#145

Post by sequoia » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

discreditable wrote: post #83

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 would really like to abstain but my family doesn't take covid seriously and would likely ostracize me. I've tried to explain that I work in a school and I'm the most likely in our group to be carrying, but that doesn't go far with them.

Now is the time to stand on your principals & do what you know is right. It may upset your family in the short term, but you'll be able to look back & know you did the right thing. Imagine you gather, you find out you had Covid and gave it to a relative who later dies of it. How will that feel? What if you are "a bit sick" and a relative dies of Covid afterward and you never know if you were the one who gave it to them?

Make the choice that lets you sleep easy at night & be able to say "even though it was hard, I did the right thing." Standing up for what's right isn't always easy.

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

#146

Post by artursapek » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:17 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…

The tragic thing is, it's much easier to measure "coronavirus deaths" and "coronavirus cases" than it is to measure the price we pay to minimize those things. It's your typical case of over-optimizing for a single KPI and losing the bigger picture.

The measures we've taken are deteriorating society in more subtle ways, and there are deaths and suffering indirectly caused by these measures. They are just not easy to sum up. How many people have killed themselves because of the lockdowns and economic problems? I know of at least one. How many people in third world countries are starving as a result of it? I've read millions. How many families are being torn apart due to increased divorces? These kinds of effects pay out their harm over longer periods of time, and in less obvious ways. We aren't tracking those on a widget on TV.

Because the pro-lockdown, pro-authoritarian case is so much easier to back with clear and obvious numbers the government and media are able to easily manipulate the population, most of whom won't consider the trade-offs, into conformity. This is so sad to watch.

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

#147

Post by RationalThought » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

war1025 wrote: post #78

smeyer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Over the next 38 days, the virus spread to 176 other people. Seven of them died. Seven people died. This isn't some hypothetical where people are acting like there's risk where there isn't; it's a story of seven real, living, breathing humans passing away.

People die. I'm becoming more and more callus about the whole thing and beginning to think we just need to adjust our expectations and accept that people die . I was told recently that my town is in terrible shape and the hospitals are nearly overwhelmed. Listening further, I learned that "nearly overwhelmed" meant we had capacity for two or three people to be really sick with Coronavirus. If we need to decimate our…

I'm becoming more and more callous about people who don't give a shit if their selfishness kills others.

Guess what, that goes two ways. If you can't be bothered to wear a mask and socially distance, and you are fine with people dying because they've committed the sin of having asthma. If you're ok with perfectly healthy young adults having heart issues because they survived covid-19, then I'm ok with YOU suffering while the civilized world tries to save lives.

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

#148

Post by adolph » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

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 risk mitigation is linked to risk profile. Even in non-pandemic times an immunocompromised person or caregiver thereof must behave differently from someone who is not.

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

#149

Post by mmastrac » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

drc37 wrote: post #135

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.

Thank you for putting random third-party individuals in your social circle at risk.

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

#150

Post by MetallicCloud » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

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.

Or they'd rather take a chance to see their loved ones, rather than be safe and isolated.