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

161–170 of 415 posts

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

#161

Post by sequoia »

war1025 wrote: post #109
sequoia wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'fighting the virus harms the economy' Would you believe it if I told you that not fighting the virus has an even bigger toll on the economy? Imagine if we'd aggressively addressed this problem back in March, how much less economic impact would have resulted. But then, as now, we wanted to "protect the economy" and avoid restrictions as long as possible. But this time the strategy will work? I have trouble believing…

> Imagine if we'd aggressively addressed this problem back in March, Europe had about the strictest lockdown you can imagine and their economy isn't exactly peaches and cream right now. And they have spiking case counts just like the US right now.

> And they have spiking case counts just like the US right now.

What lead to this recent spike, in your opinion?

"peaches and cream" it's a global pandemic, I don't think "peaches and cream" is on the table right now. What we need is to survive to have peaches and cream another day, and that takes discipline and PERSONAL SACRIFICE not everyone whining and moaning about how they can't just pretend nothing is going on and do everything as normal, as some people seem so desperate to do. I weep for how spoiled and entitled our society is, living in the lap of luxury but still complaining.

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

#162

Post by vharuck »

OJFord wrote: post #29
tengbretson wrote: post #15

I wonder if we could implement some sort of cap and trade system to make everyone happy? Everyone could be rationed a certain number of gatherings per month and then each person would be free to choose how to use them. They could use one to see family during the holidays, they could go to a protest, go to a wedding, celebrate in the street, go to a movie, etc. We could even track them as discrete tokens, or "social c…

How does that help? Stay at home for as many events as you want, going to one 'super-spreading wedding' is still no bueno.

It's true that minimizing all gatherings is the best choice. But we also have to recognize that social distancing fatigue happens. And when it does, people might stop socially distancing. Giving them a "social budget" could help them recognize risks and keep it up for longer. Of course, don't give them enough budget for an indoor wedding.

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

#163

Post by cmurf »

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.

One reason is short staffed nursing homes and hospitals.

In North Dakota the governor just signed an executive order allowing Covid-positive healthcare workers to stay on job. Including nursing homes.

Another reason: don't work, no income. U.S. has no federal sick leave law. Most states don't either.

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

#164

Post by futureshock »

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 am going to jump to your aid, because I suspect the downvotes are coming. I think it is ok to question if we are doing the right thing. There are intellectually honest ways to do that and intellectually dishonest ways. I do think we should do everything we can to avoid becoming callous. Some amount of of emotional fatigue is to be expected though. We are talking about nearly 250k deaths so far. That is a completely overwhelming number. And the lockdowns and general fear has created an immeasurable impact on the the future world economy, political stability and mental health.

The science is clear that the risk of COVID morbidity and mortality is not evenly distributed. There could be more than one good way to manage this risk and keep our healthcare system functioning. As we start distributing the vaccine, we are going to have a great opportunity to mitigate a large portion of the risk for some people, while accepting a lower risk for others as the price to pay for getting back to normal as soon as possible. We make these kinds of population risk decisions all the time and no one bats an eye. Simply getting in your car every day and trusting your life to its imperfect safety systems is one example.

Soon we will need to draw that line of what risk we, as a society will accept, and then get on with it.

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

#165

Post by beamatronic »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #130
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.

Amazing the risk management decision some people will make in exchange for their personal freedom right now in this country.

How did masks ever get conflated with “freedom” anyway. But regardless, don’t people have a sense of self-preservation? When does that kick in?

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

#166

Post by enumjorge »

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 is such a simplistic take on the virus. There’s not just the death rate, there’s also the lingering health effects many people are experiencing after getting over COVID. There’s the fact that it’s not just affecting elderly people, setting aside the suggestion that the elderly are expendable. There’s also the fact that in many places in the US it’s pushing the medical system to its very limits. In North Dakota the governor asked nurses who are COVID positive to go back to work because they are so short staffed [0].

What about their personal freedom? What about the people who don’t want to work in an environment that might put them or one of their loved ones at risk? You talk about living in a bubble but you don’t seem to consider the teachers, first responders, medical workers, who have to make the choice between working during a pandemic or losing their livelihood.

None countries you mentioned didn’t descend into authoritarianism by enforcing restrictions during a once-in-a-century pandemic.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/north-dakota-lets-healt...

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

#167

Post by 3JPLW »

xur17 wrote: post #136
Pfhreak wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a good resource for thinking around limiting transmission risks:

https://english.elpais.com/society/2020-10-28/a-room-a-bar-a...

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

#168

Post by kyleblarson »

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.

In the startup ecosystem at least the blame lies with leaders who continually value 'hustle'. In other cases it is usually 'I don't get sick pay and I need to feed my kids'.

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

#169

Post by technofiend »

arkitaip wrote: post #111
technofiend wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hey, thanks. She just went to sleep and never woke up. If you're going to go that's the way to do it.

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

#170

Post by beamatronic »

mmastrac wrote: post #159
leetcrew wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm so glad I don't live in a libertarian world like this.

My response would be to live in a burbclave surrounded by similarly-minded individuals
Post reply on HN