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

#281

Post by dougmwne » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:06 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #227

war1025 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What lead to this recent spike, in your opinion? The virus is seasonal just like the flu would be my guess.

OK you must be yanking my chain now, I can't believe you're commenting on this so boldly and are completely unaware of the last huge spike in cases when occurred in July. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/world/coronavirus-covid-1... over & out

A lot of the summer spikes were in hot places with a lot of air conditioning where people tend to stay inside a lot during the summer. When I have looked at infection maps in the EU and USA, they seem very clearly connected to season. I think there is a process where people adjust their lifestyles to the current risk of infection, but then the goalposts get moved and the infection rate goes up due to environmental factors. Then there is a period of behavior adjustment again until the infection rates level off.

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

#282

Post by orangecat » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #241

snazz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

it is not true that you don't have to worry, that there's no risk of mortality or morbidity

For young healthy people, it's true in the same sense that you don't have to worry about getting struck by lightning or attacked by a shark. These things happen, but they're so rare that it's silly to go through your life in constant fear.

besides being incredibly selfish

It is not selfish to consider whether it's possible to protect vulnerable people without demanding that everyone give up their social lives, children's education, and jobs for a year.

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

What evidence? Schools haven't been significant drivers of infection or deaths anywhere in the world. Yes, the risk is not literally zero, but if that's your criterion then you'd never leave your bedroom.

this "only old people die of it" myth needs to be squashed

If everyone had the risk factor of a healthy 30 year old (say, 1 in 10,000 chance of death and 1 in 2500 chance of serious complications), would you still support shutting everything down?

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

#283

Post by slg » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

ls612 wrote: post #220

slg wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 invad…

>Not every slope is slippery. We can move further along a spectrum without being guaranteed to fall off a cliff. Let me ask you something; Has there been any setting in the past 50 years other than changing sexual mores in which people have gained any personal freedom? And have any of the instances in which people lost bits of their freedoms in that same timeframe ever been reversed (again aside from changing sexual…

I don't see how the overall trend is relevant to this specific issue. I also don't understand why you are ignoring "sexual mores" or even what that specifically means. Does that include every increase in personal freedom related to gender and sexuality? It would be weird to ignore those because they are obviously the biggest increases in freedom over the last 50 years since many of the biggest changes of the civil rights movement occurred just outside that window.

If you do want to ignore all those issue, I will point out that freedom of speech is more prominent today than it was 50 years ago. After repeal of the fairness doctrine, the loosening of obscenity laws, and various court cases including Citizens United most recently, free speech rights might be at an all time high in the US.

Also there are examples of freedom being lost and regained in gun ownership. The assault weapons ban in the US that lasted 10 years is one that comes to mind.

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

#284

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

mbostleman wrote: post #223

tshaddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 confusing libertarian with anarchist.

I don't think I'm confused. I'm well aware that the word "libertarian" is used to describe a vasty range of beliefs, but I gave a realistic description of mainstream libertarianism in the United States. The Libertarian Party opposes food and drug safety regulations and workplace safety regulations, for instance.

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

#285

Post by goostavos » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #198

vbordo wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misapplication of an ideological statement about abortion. Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives.

"Disregarding the guidance of health professionals such as wearing a mask and socially distancing means endangering other people's lives." ...which isn't different than any other year. Every year, the flu kills tens of thousands (in the US -- higher worldwide). Disproportionately children. Every year, driving kills hundreds of thousands, even when you exclude the effects of alcohol. Every year, people have sex withou…

>This is the first time in my life that we've tried to apply transitive risk logic to justify curtailing of individual freedoms.

Seems wrong to me, too. There exists no society (that I'm aware of) where the decisions of an individual don't have second or third order effects on other members of the society. We manage and deal with this risk every day of our lives. Sometimes it flat out sucks. However, you can't control for it without raising a lot of very, very uncomfortable questions about what personal choices get to be made, by whom, and under which conditions.

This boils down to how you see the world, I guess. Much like any of the usual contentious political topics, both 'camps' view the other side as morally reprehensible.

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

#286

Post by drc37 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #149

drc37 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

COVID is not going anywhere. It is here with us and is not a light switch to be turned off. Eventually, everyone will get it. By hiding in your closet and afraid coming out is not the solution. I live in here in Mountain west where there is a lot of skepticism about everything with COVID. Not that it's not real, but how to approach get past it. For example, I believe that flattening the curve means staying open and going on about your normal lives. As we have seen, shutting down and then reopening only seems to cause spikes again.

If you get it, you get it. It sucks. It sucks a lot worse for some than others. But so does heart disease, cancer and any number of things I could get and die from.

To live your life in constant fear is no life at all.

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

#287

Post by mmastrac » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #243

mmastrac wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-ana...

"Using these age-specific estimates, we estimate the overall IFR in a typical low-income country, with a population structure skewed towards younger individuals, to be 0.23% (0.14-0.42 95% prediction interval range). In contrast, in a typical high income country, with a greater concentration of elderly individuals, we estimate the overall IFR to be 1.15% (0.78-1.79 95% prediction interval range)."

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

#288

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

craftinator wrote: post #245

tshaddox wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Food and health regulations are explicitly opposed by the Libertarian Party of the United States. The word "libertarian" covers a vast range of beliefs, but my description is very reasonable.

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

#289

Post by dougmwne » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #205

war1025 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What we need is to survive to have peaches and cream another day, Great news! As a collective we will survive this just fine no matter what happens. Individually some people won't be so lucky. Coronavirus is a tragedy, but it is far from an existential threat.

Also: wow. So 1.3 million avoidable deaths worldwide (or 250k in the US if you're there) is an acceptable loss to you, but staying home for the holidays is unacceptable? Your lack of empathy for your fellow humans is staggering. A day may come when tragedy strikes your family, I hope you are shown more empathy than you are choosing to extend to others here.

I think it is good to have compassion for other people's frustration. Everyone has made sacrifices this year. I don't think any person's experience should be dismissed. The best way to inspire compassion in others is with your own compassion.

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

#290

Post by orangecat » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

raesene9 wrote: post #46

corona-research wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to say the authors don’t exist because some troll entered a fake name on their website? Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations. Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine d…

The great barrington declaration is undoubtedly not fake, in that the core people who put their names to it have not said they didn't. The volume of support is of course dubious as the only requirement for saying that a "medical professional" was signing it, was a check box on a web form. the challenge I see with the declaration's approach is that (AFAIK) it skips over the hard part of how "Focused Protection." is ac…

it skips over the hard part of how "Focused Protection." is actually implemented

That's a reasonable criticism, but I would point out that the "responsible" strategy of trying to force entire populations into quarantine has not survived contact with reality either.

A worker at a care facility spread it to a set of vulnerable people

The worker should have been living on site, or if that's not possible seeing literally nobody outside of their job. And we should be paying them huge amounts of money to compensate for that disruption.