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

311–320 of 415 posts

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

#311

Post by tshaddox »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #308
tshaddox wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They oppose the government regulations. Not necessarily rules and standards in general. The thinking is that the restaurant should be certified by industry not by the government, kind of like how the ASE certifications work for mechanics.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm talking of course about government regulations. Clearly we're not talking about the non-existent regulations imposed by this hotel or wedding planner.

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

#312

Post by tshaddox »

mmastrac wrote: post #219
beamatronic wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My response would be to live in a burbclave surrounded by similarly-minded individuals

So... a country?

It's a clever idea. Perhaps you could even vote for who you want to create and enforce the private regulations of your burbclave.

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

#313

Post by NotTheDr01ds »

ericbarrett wrote: post #69
NotTheDr01ds wrote: post #41

Isn't the long-term care facility link a little implausible? 4 days seems like a bit short for the child to be infected, incubate to the point of being contagious, pass it to the parent, then incubate again to the parent being symptomatic. Regardless, the wedding and reception behavior was entirely irresponsible. But the link between it and the long-term care cases seems tenuous, at best.

Doesn’t seem so; the numbers I’ve heard since the beginning of the pandemic are 24-48 hours until you are infectious, and 2-14 days (a lot of variance) for symptoms, if you are going to show them. If somebody has newer numbers please do share.

Well, there's the rub. No one seems to know, even today, how long after exposure you become contagious. That's especially the case for asymptomatic spreaders (as we assume the child was, if the child was the source for the parent).

Everyone seems to say "1-2 days before symptoms start", although some sources say "2-3 days". And yes, as you say, the 2-14 days for becoming symptomatic seems to be much more agreed upon.

That's where it seems to me to be a very rapid spread (below average) from the wedding to the LTCF. But not impossible.

I was also curious about the situation around the LTCF in the days leading up to that outbreak. I was expecting to find that perhaps there were other community cases around there that could have contributed to the LTCF.

However, looking at the MeCDC website for Somerset County (where the LTCF is reported to be located), the county seemed to be pretty "under control" in the days leading up to this event. The most recent confirmed cases had been over 2 weeks prior, on July 24th. It's actually the longest they had gone without a new case in almost 3 months.

Given that, I'm more likely (as the CDC concluded) to suspect the contact tracing from the wedding to the LTCF as being the cause. It's not an absolute link, but it's probably more likely than I originally assumed.

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

#314

Post by flubert »

maxerickson wrote: post #143
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…

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.

Does anyone have statistics on mask wearing compliance in public? Seems like someone could use ML to identify people with and without masks. Last time I went out shopping it was 100% compliance (and using a mask correctly) as near as I could tell.

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

#315

Post by ryandrake »

drc37 wrote: post #286
mmastrac wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

This approach makes sense for something that's random and not easily preventable, like lightning strikes and pancreatic cancer. It makes no sense for COVID, where there are very simple things you can do to greatly reduce the risk of spread: Namely not going to large gatherings, and wearing a little piece of cloth on your face. It's just like wearing a seatbelt. People don't wear seatbelts because they live their lives in constant fear--they wear them because they are simple, low-effort ways to greatly reduce risk of death.

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

#316

Post by sequoia »

war1025 wrote: post #171
maxerickson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you conflating "aggressively addressed this problem" with a strict lockdown? The spring lockdown made sense, in that we didn't really have much information. At this point, we have a bunch of other tools that we aren't using, because people have decided that doing anything is somehow the equivalent of a strict lockdown.

> Why are you conflating "aggressively addressed this problem" with a strict lockdown? The hypothetical was "Imagine if we had addressed the problem in March?" We did in fact lock the country down for several months. People seem quick to forget it for political reasons.

> We did in fact lock the country down for several months.

No we didn't. What state or city could you not travel to? Where were you confined to your house and forbidden from going outdoors?

We closed schools, some businesses & public attractions like beaches in some places (not that there weren't still huge crowds on beaches in many places), but we did not "lock the country down." Everyone was basically free to go outside, socialize, and travel wherever they pleased.

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

#317

Post by tshaddox »

tomp wrote: post #278
lostlogin wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those killed in the story didn’t go to the party. As well as those who died, some number will have long term disability and illness. Many of them won’t have been guests at the wedding.

They still made choices to get in close contact with people who did go to the party, without having vetted them sufficiently. I'm not saying it's easy to avoid such choices, but even things like going out to buy food - how many layers of mask are you wearing? What hours do you go shopping? How many months of food do you have stored at your home (inb4 "survivalists are just paranoid")?

That's a bit like saying you should personally vet every automobile driver before they drive close to you to see if they're intoxicated, and if you get injured by a drunk driver, that was your fault for not having vetted them sufficiently.

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

#318

Post by ceejayoz »

timr wrote: post #216
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And liability is part of that - that's why auto insurance is mandatory. There's a difference between reckless endangerment/homicide than an accident. Ridiculous false equivalency.

"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.

> And yet, comparison of catching a virus to homicide by gun is not.

That was not intended as a comparison, but as an obvious example of where "my body, my choice" clearly does not apply to making a slight movement of your index finger.

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

#319

Post by anoncake »

beamatronic wrote: post #165
ed25519FUUU wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Having to wear masks is a restriction of freedom, albeit not a very severe one.

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

#320

Post by tshaddox »

timr wrote: post #247
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Firstly, that's not the same commenter. Secondly, the drunk driving and gun examples were clearly provided merely as examples where "my body, my choice" doesn't apply.
Post reply on HN