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

Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

247sports.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 273 posts

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#261

Post by nradov »

dgudkov wrote: post #258
nradov wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are adults , not children. Quarantine measures applied to adults based on age are unprecedented and unjustified.

From a legal standpoint, not exactly. For instance, people in the US are prohibited from buying alcohol until 21yo. Do you consider that restriction also unprecedented and unjustified? :)

You've chosen a worthless example. The 21st Amendment gives states the authority to restrict alcohol sales. It is explicitly carved out as a legal exception and thus legally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#262

Post by ryandrake »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #26
ribosometronome wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they should vote.

Ah but that’s the irony. In the US the young overwhelmingly vote for the side that supports these authoritarian shutdowns. I remember when the authoritarians were on the right and the freedom lovers on the left. Oh, how times have changed. (Compare South Dakota, right-leaning and NEVER locked down, to my home state of California, which is so democrat-leaning that we’re a de facto single party state)

Enforcing sensible public health policy in the middle of a raging, deadly, global pandemic is hardly authoritarian. We are being asked to put a little piece of cloth over our faces and to stay at home when we don’t have to go out. Yet people are acting like we are being loaded onto the trains. Have we so completely lost our sense of perspective?

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#263

Post by shadowprofile77 »

ardy42 wrote: post #231
shadowprofile77 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A drunk driver is already knowingly drunk and driving one+ ton of metal around at lethally high speeds. Many of these young people, possibly even the vast majority of them, are not knowingly infected, but being treated as if they were all contagious and thus uniformly the equivalents of drunk drivers. Moreover, this is being based on very questionable cause and effect speculation about how much damage said young peop…

> Your analogy is just bad. Closer would be banning all drivers between a certain age rubric because possibly, maybe, some of them will get drunk and drive. You know we already ban all drivers "between a certain age rubric"? Try to get your driver's license from age 0-15.

I was referring to adult drivers or at least those with more or less adult faculties and physiology (and in some rural areas depending on country, farm and country driving for younger 12 to 15 year old's is definitely tolerated or even conditionally legal.) Now you're just entering absurdity by comparing my previous comment to bans on drivers so young that half the ages you mention couldn't even reach a brake pedal in a normal car.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#264

Post by __blockcipher__ »

stripline wrote: post #222
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, COVID is basically over in New York. You know why? Because it passed the real herd immunity threshold. (Simplistic models overestimate the true HIT due to not accounting for heterogeneity across the dimensions of genetic susceptibility, genetic transmissibility, and social contacts). Ironically, the hysteria is partially why New York’s IFR is the highest in the world; fears of hospital overrun scenarios that nev…

> fears of hospital overrun scenarios that never materialized You sure about that? I had friends who are doctors there tell me back during the peak (~April) they had run out of anesthesia and had to intubate patients without it.

Yes, isolated cases of specific hospitals running out of certain resources is not really the overrun scenario we were warned about.

Intubating without anaesthesia sounds very not-fun though.

BTW New York followed a doctrine of early invasive ventilation which almost certainly caused iatrogenic harm. So perhaps an over-reliance on intubation contributed to your friends' hospital(s) running out (that's besides the point but just interesting to note)

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#265

Post by __blockcipher__ »

davesque wrote: post #154
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it telling that they described a complete ban on gatherings for an entire age range a “minor sacrifice”? Really shows you how far the overton window shifted. Also doubly ironic that I got called paranoid for talking about what is literally happening right now, not what I fear might happen.

Also, here's another comment you made in this article: > It’s kind of like how everyone thinks that they would have opposed the Nazis because they grew up being taught that Nazis were bad. The truth is, this experiment in mass collective delusion has made it very clear which among us would have spoken out. > The ones reporting their neighbors for having a gathering or not wearing a mask while watering their lawn woul…

I stand by the comment. I didn't say that Nazis were invading the country. I said the same unquestioning deference to authority was at play then as it is now. There's nothing paranoid about a reflection on human nature.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#266

Post by __blockcipher__ »

ryandrake wrote: post #262
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah but that’s the irony. In the US the young overwhelmingly vote for the side that supports these authoritarian shutdowns. I remember when the authoritarians were on the right and the freedom lovers on the left. Oh, how times have changed. (Compare South Dakota, right-leaning and NEVER locked down, to my home state of California, which is so democrat-leaning that we’re a de facto single party state)

Enforcing sensible public health policy in the middle of a raging, deadly, global pandemic is hardly authoritarian. We are being asked to put a little piece of cloth over our faces and to stay at home when we don’t have to go out. Yet people are acting like we are being loaded onto the trains. Have we so completely lost our sense of perspective?

We're talking here about an order to prohibit all gatherings among young people. That's a huge restriction of 1a right to peaceable assembly.

I happen to think mask mandates are ridiculous too but that's besides the point.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#267

Post by DetroitThrow »

nradov wrote: post #261
dgudkov wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a legal standpoint, not exactly. For instance, people in the US are prohibited from buying alcohol until 21yo. Do you consider that restriction also unprecedented and unjustified? :)

You've chosen a worthless example. The 21st Amendment gives states the authority to restrict alcohol sales. It is explicitly carved out as a legal exception and thus legally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Why is it worthless and why does the 21st amendment matter? The 9th amendment specifically allows states to legally preside over things that the federal government is not, so these laws are directly comparable other than that the 21st amendment in this case just specifically forbids the federal government from overriding the states decisions using the commerce clause.

There is clearly legal precedent to age discrimination/restrictions in the United States, from age related employment discrimination protections not applying to those under the age of 40, to the legal age of alcohol and recreational marijuana consumption (the latter of which is not somehow "exempted" by the 21st amendments restriction of the federal government).

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#268

Post by nickthemagicman »

dang wrote: post #256
nickthemagicman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to get downvotes like crazy from the Corona Cult. Vote in November! Keep the fanatics from taking over.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Posting like this is basically arson, or criminal negligence. I'm sure you don't mean to cause harm, but this has been a problem for a long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23299305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20135818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18257769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1…

Thanks for your work keeping the site sane, Dang. Apologies. I get overly emotional.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#269

Post by ryandrake »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #266
ryandrake wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing sensible public health policy in the middle of a raging, deadly, global pandemic is hardly authoritarian. We are being asked to put a little piece of cloth over our faces and to stay at home when we don’t have to go out. Yet people are acting like we are being loaded onto the trains. Have we so completely lost our sense of perspective?

We're talking here about an order to prohibit all gatherings among young people. That's a huge restriction of 1a right to peaceable assembly. I happen to think mask mandates are ridiculous too but that's besides the point.

It is not without precedent. Courts have upheld government's power to enforce curfews, which limit gatherings of adults, to protect public safety and property. I would like to see a court weigh in the constitutionality of a curfew for the narrow purpose of protecting the public from a pandemic. You may end up being right. I don't think the SCOTUS has weighed in on curfews yet.

Re: Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds

#270

Post by dang »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #268
dang wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. Posting like this is basically arson, or criminal negligence. I'm sure you don't mean to cause harm, but this has been a problem for a long time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730601 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23299305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20135818 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18257769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1…

Thanks for your work keeping the site sane, Dang. Apologies. I get overly emotional.

That's just being human. We don't hold it against you at all.
Post reply on HN