Boulder prohibits gatherings of any size for 18-22 year olds • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by donw » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:30 AM UTC

MrStephenJ wrote: post #58

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #52

In this case I think the ages are a distraction. This is clearly a violation of the constitution even given Covid due to it essentially banning a large section of the population from something as fundamental as visiting friends.

You've heard of this pandemic thing going on though, right? Perhaps they should have not put an age restriction on.

Credibility goes right out the window when you say "No large gatherings! Unless they're a protest/riot for a cause we support! Or a funeral for a late supreme court justice on our side."

If you want people to follow rules, you have to be consistent in how those rules are applied.

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

#72

Post by Cola » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:30 AM UTC

DetroitThrow wrote: post #46

eplanit wrote: post #34

The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy (…

>The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy…

They aren't ending them, though. Just prohibiting them.

It seems comically naive to expect that the population that faces virtually zero downside and has the greatest propensity for risky behavior would obey such an order.

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

#73

Post by ClumsyPilot » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:32 AM UTC

marcell wrote: post #55

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can e…

One thing that amazes is me is how the individual rights objections to these orders get so little credit. People go into deep discussions of whether the cost/benefit makes sense (do you save sufficient lives with a measure to offset the cost of the restrictions). As you point out, this is collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place. There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are out…

"collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place."

You can't proclaim this as a universal principle. Modern civilisation requires a significant amount of collectivism.

Think of the justice system. Back in 18th century England prisoners were charged for being in Jail and by judges to be judged - with massive corruption. Courts were not open to public.

There was no police or detectives - they were seen as totalitarian and opressive. Arrests depended on hue and cry and violent criminals openly boasted of their deeds in pubs

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

#74

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:32 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56

ribosometronome wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they should vote.

I'd argue that younger people are less likely to vote because they're less likely to find politicians who they want to vote for, so just telling them to vote largely misses the point.

> I'd argue that younger people are less likely to vote because they're less likely to find politicians who they want to vote for, so just telling them to vote largely misses the point.

So vote and get active in a political party, then?

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

#75

Post by tamaharbor » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:32 AM UTC

Yahoo comments are disabled, so I will say this here: What a bunch of pussies. Contrary to popular belief, you will probably not die if you catch the virus.

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

#76

Post by Dfol » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:33 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #61

senthil_rajasek wrote: post #36

The article does not say anything about what if any data was used to make this decision. Conflating this as a human rights issue as some commenters have tried to on this thread is a dangerous trend. In other cities, like La crosse, WI for instance college campuses tended to be the hotspots. The same was true of senior housing a few months back. So I am leaning towards the public health officials targeting this based…

If college campuses are an issue, then maybe something should be done about college campuses instead of drastic measures for everyone who happens to be in that age group? (EDIT: looking at the text of the order, it does have more specific restrictions for students and people living in some specified properties, which makes the general ban on top even weirder) It's also a very dangerous trend to ignore human rights be…

Or, the exact opposite. College campuses aren't exactly known for dense populations of people the most at risk (people over 70.)

College campuses are the best possible location for herd immunity to take place.

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

#77

Post by bosswipe » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:34 AM UTC

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #21

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can e…

Are there any professional epidemiologists advocating for natural herd immunity as a goal? I'm not an expert but what I've seen is them saying the opposite. Here's one example https://www.islandpacket.com/news/coronavirus/article2458339...

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

#78

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:35 AM UTC

MrStephenJ wrote: post #58

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #52

In this case I think the ages are a distraction. This is clearly a violation of the constitution even given Covid due to it essentially banning a large section of the population from something as fundamental as visiting friends.

You've heard of this pandemic thing going on though, right? Perhaps they should have not put an age restriction on.

I think it's quite a bit more than a "perhaps". The order is clearly an attempt to target a politically disfavored age bracket; it would never occur to someone without specific animus against CU-Boulder students to write such a narrow rule.

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

#79

Post by votepaunchy » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:36 AM UTC

lizardking wrote: post #11

thedudeabides5 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, funny how capriciously we treat the rights and welfare of the young these days. Try cutting the social security COLA by 1%? Get a riot. Destroy the economic livelihoods of a generation of new entrants to the economy? No problemo, my stocks and real estate portfolio is doing great!

People who receive social security actually vote, unlike the young.

Many towns make it difficult for college students to vote in local elections.

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

#80

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #74

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that younger people are less likely to vote because they're less likely to find politicians who they want to vote for, so just telling them to vote largely misses the point.

> I'd argue that younger people are less likely to vote because they're less likely to find politicians who they want to vote for, so just telling them to vote largely misses the point. So vote and get active in a political party, then?

The level of involvement in politics required to influence who's on the ballot is quite a big commitment, and I think it's entirely reasonable for people to expect representation even if they don't have time for that.