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

#241

Post by sequoia » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

snazz wrote: post #207

sequoia wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to be in a high risk group. You have to be in a high risk group for what? To die? As far as I know, while some health conditions or age raise risk of covid death or morbidity, there is no group that is without risk of death, i.e. anyone might die from Covid19. Is that your understanding as well, or do you know of some demographic group that has experienced 0 deaths?

To play the devil's advocate, the line of reasoning you used in your comment isn't very useful. Just because more than zero 5- to 14-year-olds have died from covid does not negate the fact that their risk is minuscule compared to other age groups. With a large enough sample size, there are always going to be outliers.

Fair enough. But this "I don't have to worry because I'm young and healthy!" besides being incredibly selfish (implied "who cares if I kill people around me by spreading the virus") it's also bullshit: it is not true that you don't have to worry, that there's no risk of mortality or morbidity.

I am happy to grant that the risk is much smaller, but just like the "kids can't get or spread covid" MYTH that people have been grasping to for dear life in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this "only old people die of it" myth needs to be squashed.

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

#242

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

bigwavedave wrote: post #229

nostromo wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> High risk includes kids. It includes software-engineers who are in their 20s. This is false.

To be fair, it's accurate if they also fall into an actual high-risk category like "immuno-compromised" like my sister, but I really doubt that's what the parent meant ;).

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by timr » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #139

drcross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 du…

"It is more like 0.5%-1% (if not more), and the IFR once you hit 65+ is 1.5% and rises quickly."

The current best estimates of IFR for SARS-CoV2 are:

* 0-19 years: 0.00003 (0.003%)

* 20-49 years: 0.0002 (0.02%)

* 50-69 years: 0.005 (0.5%)

* 70+ years: 0.054. (5.4%)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

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

#244

Post by modzu » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #87

modzu wrote: post #59

top of hn? what happened?

The pandemic makes ongoing science/technology news, and has substantial impact upon the work culture, sector demand, and societal role of the tech sphere. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have perished from this disease and it didn't have to be this way. There is a major thrust of anti-intellectualism in the US, Brazil, and other countries. As "hackers," we try to understand what the intellectuals believe. Then, we…

your comment is fair, but the LA times article is about super-spreaders.. remember super-predators? the fearmongering pumped out of mainstream media, which well predates covid, isnt why any of us read hn. if a covid topic is to remain on hn until the pandemic is resolved, there could be better sources.

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

#245

Post by craftinator » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

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.

I think you're conflating a fringe libertarian stereotype with reality. No reasonable person wants to chance food poisoning every time they eat, which is why we have meat thermometers.

Libertarians that I've read and met, in general, want to remove government policies that force entanglement or reliance on the government. A good example is DUIs; reasonably, we know that driving while impaired is dangerous, but what we don't want is for someone to make the mistake of doing that being beholden to the governments whims for their entire lives, which is currently how it works.

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

#246

Post by dougmwne » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

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.

I think that Europe is not the correct comparison to draw. From what I understand from friends and family, the lockdown in the EU was not particularly different than the US. It varied from region to region. There was some resistance to wearing masks in some places. People did not stop traveling, holding events or eating out.

I think the best comparison to draw is China and New Zealand. They have the strictest lockdowns you can imagine and the virus has been completely contained in those countries. Whole cities are locked down after just a few cases. China has been limiting and disinfecting frozen food imports as it is one of the few remaining vectors the virus has been reentering the country. As far as I understand, their economies and daily life have been saved, but it comes at a huge cost to individual freedom, a cost that North America or Europe would never accept. There is no point in imagining Chinese disease control measures in America. It's beyond the realm of possibility. We need other solutions.

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

#247

Post by timr » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #235

timr wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency." And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.

Strawman, I never mentioned homicide by gun.

This entire subthread is in response to just such a comparison:

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

And I quoted you -- you make a comparison to homicide. Comparing catching a virus to homicide of any sort is...extreme.

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

#248

Post by m0llusk » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:42 PM UTC

greggman3 wrote: post #155

First off let me make it clear (1) I've mostly stayed entirely isolate since March. (2) I plan to stay isolated. So don't shoot the messenger please. Anyway, I live in Tokyo. Tokyo Metro area has basically all of California (SF, SD, etc..) squeezed into an area the size of Los Angeles. 34 million people. Tokyo has been mostly unlocked since June. Theaters and other venues are open (every other seat), clubs are open (…

The Japanese effort to contain the virus correctly guessed that since the virus spreads quickly the best approach is to identify and contain clusters. This has made it possible to target their testing and tracking in a way that is highly effective.

The not wearing shoes inside really needs to be called out as bunk on two levels. First of all, coronavirus is extremely weak and does not live at all outside of droplets. This means that fomites, that is the spread of infection through residues on surfaces is negligible. You need droplets or aerosol for an infection. Second, as a housecleaner I have found that the no shoes indoors rules leads to less floor cleaning and dirtier floors since the reality is still that gravity takes every crumb and speck down and walking around spreads all that. It is unpopular to say, but in my experience shoes allowed in the house results in cleaner floors because people understand that crud is always accumulating there rather than being in denial.

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

#249

Post by war1025 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #200

war1025 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why can you accept people dying, but not accept the economy not doing well? The economy goes up and down. It's a fact of life. Why worry about it?

> Why can you accept people dying, but not accept the economy not doing well?

In the grand scheme of "the economy", my portfolio is up something like 8% for the year last time I checked. My job is stable.

In the locality of "the economy", I have heard multiple businesses in my area say that they are barely hanging on by a thread and will be forced to close permanently if the state forces them to shut down again.

People might not be dying from the shutdowns, but it sure is an uneven load we're asking people to carry. Particularly from this high pulpit of HN, where we nearly all have cushy tech jobs where we don't have to interact with anyone to get paid.

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

#250

Post by throwaway83844 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 5:43 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.

I've been super self isolated. I live lone. I've seen 6 people since march 15th and those were just 2hr walks outdoors with masks on. That's it.

But, it's reasonable question to ask, what's the acceptable number of casualties. The answer is not zero. We have plenty of other diseases that kill lots of people. COVID is more but we still have to pick a number.

Is 1 in 100 ok? 1 in 500? 1 in 1000? 1 in 5k? (the car rate), 1 in 10k? (the flu rate).

I heard about this thinking on the Sam Harris podcast. He mentioned some people claiming if we lifted all restrictions by their estimates deaths would be 1 in 300. He and his interviewee dismissed out of hand without giving it any thought which was very disappointing. Whether or not it actually would be 1 in 300 we still have to pick a number below which we'd accept the losses. Is there a reasonable way to decide that number? Flu is around 1 in 10k (or at least my 30 seconds of searching seem to put it in the same order of magnitude) so apparently that's an acceptable number and we don't apparently get upset as a society that people go around spreading the flu. (though I get super upset personally)