18 ms·

San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 people

388 points by maerF0x0 7y ago

LegitShady 7y ago
Pretty sure contravenes constitution but whatever.
- sneak 7y ago
  Governments have a lot more power in the immediate moment than we like to confront; it isn’t until weeks or months later that courts (sometimes) get around to stopping them.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... (CDC: Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine) TLDR Legal and constitutional.
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    According to the CDC. IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from eroding the trust of those lied to.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      The epidemic will be over by the time you're in front of a judge. The argument is academic.
      - gpm 7y ago
        Preliminary injunctions can happen pretty quickly...
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        No judge is going to sign off on an injunction when an epidemic is raging nationwide, with a large number of confirmed cases on the west coast [1]. I'll eat crow if you find one with that much chutzpa. [1] https://infection2020.com/ https://infection2020.com/
        munk-a 7y ago
        They may in extreme circumstances - the courts still will function and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of BS challenges to this restriction - but if authorities step over the line and, for instance, close down a small political rally of 300 while an opponent's rally of 500 is unaffected, then injunctions will happen.
    - ken 7y ago
      According to the Supreme Court, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
      - randyrand 7y ago
        That ruling is for interstate quanrentines. not within a state.
        ken 7y ago
        Can you explain? The second paragraph of the majority decision quotes the Louisiana law which it upholds: "In case that any parish, town, or city, or any portion thereof, shall become infected with any contagious or infectious disease, to such an extent as to threaten the spread of such disease to the other portions of the state, the state board of health shall issue its proclamation declaring the facts and ordering it in quarantine, and shall order the local boards of health in other parishes, towns, and cities to quarantine against said locality" That sure sounds like it's talking about local quarantines to me.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      The legal system is explicitly set up to encourage this. Laws don't actually spell out in detail every situation to which they might apply - there's no way a legislator can foresee this. Rather, the laws provide general guidelines of legislative intent, and then if two firms disagree on what that means, they take it to court, where the judge and often jury look at the specifics of the case, the text of the laws, how similar past cases were decided, and the general principle that similar situations should be decided in similar ways. Then they come down with a decision, which becomes case law by which future cases are decided. If you want to succeed in Western countries it's worth internalizing this. In the absence of legal advice to the contrary, just assume that what you're doing is legal and assert it confidently, and most people won't challenge you. If they do, it helps to have lots of money to afford lawyers on retainer, so that a.) you're more likely to actually be right when you assert that what you're doing is legal and b.) you can craft very good arguments to persuade the judge and jury if it turns out you're wrong.
  - randyrand 7y ago
    They only say that there is power to prevent movement between states or coming into the USA. And they provide no proof that states have the power to quarentine.
- mc32 7y ago
  Something something emergency powers...
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person rule for several reasons: - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit the number of people in a building. - The rule is agnostic with respect to the purpose of the meeting. E.g., it's not obviously being used to suppress political or cultural movements. - It has a real, plausible purpose for public safety. That being said, I can also see some valid reasons against it: - It sets precedent, which is a powerful factor in the U.S. court system. - The 1000-person rule seems a bit arbitrary. I would think the number needs to be much smaller for the effect to be meaningful. And I'm guessing something more nuanced is what's really needed, for example spacing between persons, air recirculation / flow rates, frequency of surface cleaning vs. # persons present, etc. - It implicitly discriminates what kinds of groups can meet as before. One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. - It also potentially prevents mass protest marches, depending on the wording of the ordinance, and how willing protestors are to ignore the ordinance.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    > One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. This is one scenario where I wouldn't be surprised if there are groups that refuse to uphold the order and file lawsuits over it infringing on their right to practice their religion (and assemble, of course).
    - burlesona 7y ago
      It could happen, but at least in SF it's gone the other way. The Catholic Schools were the first to close, all 90 schools are now shut down.
  - ken 7y ago
    Mega-churches broadcast their sermons on TV already. They're better prepared for this than almost any other group.
    - djsumdog 7y ago
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Wait till you read about what will happen to you if you decide to get TB and not take your meds. You'll be sovereign citizening your way into DOT before you make a new XDR strain for us.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    In America, in most states, you do have the right to refuse treatment. Although mostly seen as a right to die for those who are terminal, cases have be brought up and gone either way for Christian Science followers depending on the situation/court.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf > Some jurisdictions have resolved this tension through compromise: TB patients cannot be forced to undergo treatment, but they may be isolated or detained if they refuse treatment.
- jerf 7y ago
  The metaphorical "lizard hindbrain" of common law, the basis of US law, has a lot of powers the governments can enact in cases of public health, both de facto and de jure. While they are not allowed to extend it past that point, they have a lot of existing power in this space. And... honestly... not a lot of sensible people are going to complain. Only the very fringes are going to object. The vast "middle" majority, in this case 98%+, is going to agree, conform, and be upset at the people objecting to the quarantine and who break it, not at the government. That counts for a lot too, in practice.
  - paulmd 7y ago
    This site leans incredibly libertarian and most people are not going to have a problem with this at all. I've seen people objecting to CDC existing on the basis of federalism and the right of assembly and all kinds of other stuff and that's just so far off the reservation of well-decided legal doctrine that it might as well be freemen on the land. It's frankly a very good idea. I'd even say to lower the number to 50 or maybe 100 at most. Some of the gatherings in South Korea that are believed to have been super-spreading events have been less than that (that church group).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 7y ago
  It's constitutional as an exercise of California's power under the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty well settled area of Constitutional law, as the US has had plenty of epidemics of various diseases (cholera, typhus, yellow fever, influenza, and even bubonic plague) in the 19th and early 20th centuries that provided opportunity to litigate these issues.
  - jameslevy 7y ago
    It will be interesting to see when this inevitably does affect political mobilization, or even just voting. There's a decent chance that we'll see some of this before the end of the year (and very possibly on Election Day).
- otterley 7y ago
  (I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) I do not believe this is unconstitutional. It is not meant to keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights. It's speech neutral (time/place/manner restrictions are subject to a much lower level of judicial scrutiny than content-based restrictions). It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces, nor prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks).
  - munk-a 7y ago
    > It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks). I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the city - teams remain private entities. This does effect intentional private gatherings in public spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000 people in it then your family reunion would be effected. That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar restrictions.
    - otterley 7y ago
      I thought I read something the other day that said Chase Center was at least partially owned/operated by the City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it up with Moscone Center.
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly. Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
- dang 7y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've done that quite a bit, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
StreakyCobra 7y ago
Same measures got taken everywhere, in Switzerland it was 12 days ago [1] [1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/coronavirus_switzerland-bans-events-with-more-than-1-000-people/45585378 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/coronavirus_switzerlan...
- config_yml 7y ago
  We‘re now down to 150 in most cantons. In the Ticino (bordering Italy) they are closing down schools now.
  - telesilla 7y ago
    Also other cities across Europe.
  - StreakyCobra 7y ago
    Indeed, I wanted to point out that all countries seem to go through the same process over time. It's somehow like all countries are adopting the limitations gradually, like a bit of denial that it will really happen. Wouldn't it make sense to skip some steps and be proactive? At the end we all seem to take the direction of Italy [1], maybe we should consider quarantine directly. It may be a bit more brutal, but it will cost less lives and be over sooner. The federal council is meeting on Friday morning if I'm not mistaken, I would not be surprised to see new measures during Friday lunch. [1] https://ibb.co/gZDfgPy https://ibb.co/gZDfgPy
    - sydd 7y ago
      The issue is that this wont be contained anymore, it wont be over, we fucked up. Lets say that a country, for example Sweden with its 500 known cases and 10M population goes into a total lockdown for. A few new cases emerge and after a few weeks of no new infections they open up everything again. But since other countries are still infected, they will be reinfected within days. The only way to stop it would be if the whole world goes into lockdown for a month or so, but that wont happen. We will have to live with no mass gatherings for 1-2 years, until someone comes up with a good vaccine
owlninja 7y ago
The warriors will play tomorrow night with no fans in attendance. https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1237805678023999495 https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1237805678023999495 Also is there something significant about a limit of 1000 people? Why that number?
- jedberg 7y ago
  > the warriors will play tomorrow night with no fans in attendance. To be fair, after being the first team in the NBA to be eliminated from playoff contention last night, they probably weren't going to draw very large crowds anyway. Edit: Geez it was just a joke about how poorly the Warriors are doing. > Also is there something significant about a limit of 1000 people? Why that number? It's arbitrary. It's a "big" number.
  - blueline 7y ago
    >To be fair, after being the first team in the NBA to be eliminated from playoff contention last night, they probably weren't going to draw very large crowds anyway. it would be shocking if several thousand people at the least weren't going to show up. the warriors are insanely popular even during this down period. you ever catch a knicks game on TV? they've been terrible for like an entire decade and there are definitely plenty of people in the seats...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - prh8 7y ago
    They've been bad all season, there's no reason for the attendance numbers to change now. The more interesting thing is that they're the top team in the league for revenue per home game.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      The German ice hockey league cancelled the playoffs for this year.
steveklabnik 7y ago
Austin has done the same, but for 2500 people https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/large-gatherings-banned-in-austin-through-may-1-city-says/ https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/large-gatherings-banne...
- ncallaway 7y ago
  Washington State has done the same in 3 counties for events of 250+ people.
rmason 7y ago
Michigan State University is banning all meetings of over a hundred. Today they joined most universities in Michigan to go totally remote with no in person classes. The stated reason was because the first two coronavirus cases in the state were discovered last night.
RobertDeNiro 7y ago
Kind of a half measure. Why not ban all public events? Or do we expect events with less than 1000 people to not have any infected attendees ?
- gpm 7y ago
  What is a public event? Is me meeting up with my friend in a park a public event? Also, banning all public events is much more likely to be found unconstitutional.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    If you have 1001 people in your friend group then meeting up with your friends in a park would qualify as a public event that is now restricted. Honestly, this sort of large gatherings restriction is just par for the course for epidemics, we just haven't had one that could potentially get this bad in quite a while.
  - luckydata 7y ago
    yes, you shouldn't meet anyone. Stores should be all closed except for pharmacies and grocery stores. Restaurants should be closed. Bars should be closed. Offices should be closed. For about 4 weeks. This is the only way we'll avoid hundreds of casualties. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Then we’re going to have hundreds of casualties, man. I dunno, I’m very much on the side of acting quickly and decisively, but “nobody meet anyone or do anything until April” isn’t a real option.
    - uhoh-itsmaciek 7y ago
      Not that I disagree, but how many stores, restaurants, and bars can afford to close for four weeks? And are they paying their employees during this time?
pastor_elm 7y ago
And let the layoffs of event staff begin
- ghaff 7y ago
  It has. About a third of the full-time SXSW staff has been laid off. (And of course, countless local servers, security, caterers, registration desk people, event hall setup, etc. etc. are simply not going to get much in the way of hours over the next number of months.)
- munk-a 7y ago
  It's at times like this that a well funded employment-insurance fund would be pretty useful.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    Throw in some nationalized healthcare to keep these same now-uninsured people healthy.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      If only, sadly it looks like that won't be happening in the near future due to primary developments.
      - 1MoreThing 7y ago
        It wasn't going to be happening anyways. Those types of programs need to come from Congress, and there was zero coalition built to make them actually happen.
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      Yes, let's give Trump monopoly power over the healthcare system. I've been nothing but inspired by the government response so far.
      - 7y ago
Klonoar 7y ago
Parts of Seattle/WA just did this for 250 people or more: https://mobile.twitter.com/govinslee/status/1237791115782131712 https://mobile.twitter.com/govinslee/status/1237791115782131...
pera 7y ago
Seattle just declared a similar ban but for gatherings of 250+ people: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-inslee-announces-new-rules-nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities/XIDPHMLVOJAAREQ5YCL75367PU/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-inslee-announce...
- 29athrowaway 7y ago
  That seems more reasonable.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  changed text because asking a simple question about how similar numbers of people does not impose the risk is met with down votes. it is bullshit dancing around the obvious, no matter how you assemble the number the threat is near the same. employer, school, rock concert, or tech conference. which do you think would exercise more care over the other? seriously, get a fucking clue people. karma to spare.
  - HideousKojima 7y ago
    Schools are being kept open, despite being prime vectors for spreading the virus, thanks to diversity and inclusion! >(Q)Why isn’t the district providing online learning? >(A)Seattle Public Schools serves a diverse community with varied access to technology. We are committed to providing high-quality learning for all our students, including those who do not have access to technology or internet at home. Teachers have been asked to prepare up to 14 days of lessons in the event of a student or teacher absence. As the largest district in Washington state, this is the most equitable and fair way to ensure everyone receives the support they need and deserve. Pandemics are neither equitable nor fair. If kids don't have access to technology to watch the online materials, get them cheap Chromebooks. If they don't have internet at home, then help them get subsidized low income internet like Comcast essentials or whatever, it's like $10 a month. But no, instead, in the name of diversity and equality let's spread some disease!
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
PeterStuer 7y ago
Over here, they did the same. Now 'organizers' are already advertising 999 person events. Talk about social responsibility.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Gosh I hope the hammer comes down hard on folks trying to make a buck this way if they even briefly creep over 1000 - since 1000+ events are banned maybe target events in the 100s range.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    They'll have a guy out front with a clicker to keep track. It's stupid easy to comply with while still getting close to the limit.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      Specifically, ensuring compliance is as easy as proving non-compliance. Unless the cops are there with a clicker, employee with a clicker wins every time.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I suspect that if it looks like a crowd close to a thousand the police will shut it down - additionally you need to count those who aren't being admitted, because everyone gathering outside of the dude with the clicker (and the dude themselves) will be in close contact as a result of the event. The clicker is effective for fire code issues (since you want to make sure X people aren't in the building) but for disease related issues you don't want those people gathering anywhere, and now 1000+ people will have been gathering (at various times of the night) just outside the venue because of the event.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        Sure, I think the limit is too high too. I just don't think there's going to be any exercising of these rules except against absolutely brazen cases of going over limit.
tanilama 7y ago
but 900 people are OK? We need to really think about this...
- burlesona 7y ago
  I don't think that's the implication, they just have to draw the line somewhere. I would think starting with 1000 is meant to have less dramatic impact on things like schools and workplaces with ~500 people, giving them more time to prepare before the limit goes down further.
burlesona 7y ago
I'm glad they're being this assertive now. I've been concerned that many jurisdictions in the US would wait for aggressive social distancing until the case load was already into the thousands.
- SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
  This is not aggressive. It's an order of magnitude too lax and over a week too late. This is a stunning abdication of leadership when we need it most. This is what's needed: https://mobile.twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1237020518781460480 https://mobile.twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1237020518781...
  - Tepix 7y ago
    It may be the best way to deal with this pandemic but it's questionable if western culture is compatible with these measures. People are way more openly critical in the democracies. Protests are often infectious.
  - asdfman123 7y ago
    It's amazing we had so much lead time, but American exceptionalism and the belief that ugly things only happen in other parts of the world caused us to squander it all. There's so much we could have done, but we aren't going to fully wake up until the critically ill are packed in hospital hallways.
  - psychlops 7y ago
    The solution to poor leadership in crisis planning and action is not to give those same leaders unprecedented power. This sort of outbreak is exactly the type of crisis for which we rely on governments to plan. Here we are facing an oncoming hurricane and proposing draconian, untested, and unplanned solutions and people driven by fear are willing to give up any rights they have for un-guaranteed safety.
yarinr 7y ago
Israel just banned gatherings of 100 people or more. No fans in sport events. I also wonder what would fill the vacuum of all the canceled parties and nightlife, since it's pretty popular here. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkOV11s8B8 https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkOV11s8B8
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
How often do people attend public events of 1,000 or more people? From a public health perspective, I'm sure the safest number is 0. But along the curve of 0 to 1,000 -- is the risk increase linear? Exponential? It's hard to say how effective of a measure this is in reducing spread.
- dpeck 7y ago
  I read this as mostly targeting sporting events and big concerts. Where groups with high numbers of infrequent attendees and a high number of events (basketball, baseball, soccer) are in close contact in the stands for several hours at a time.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Not often - and that's why it's so risky. Events like concerts draw random folks from diverse workplaces and communities with a shared interest that otherwise wouldn't interact, as such it tends to be a good way for the disease to break out into new communities.
  - Tepix 7y ago
    Quite a few people go to a sports match with tens of thousands of visitors every fortnight.
- rgovostes 7y ago
  The number of potential interactions is (n 2) or nC2, which is quadratic. Here's a plot: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+Binomial%5Bn%2C+2%5D+for+n%3D1+to+1000 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+Binomial%5Bn%2C+2... Obviously this is the simplest possible way to look at it, not modeling how many of those people actually come in contact with one another, the probability of transmission, etc.
- es09 7y ago
  If you assume a random person has a probability of carrying the virus at 0.001, here's the probability of someone in a crowd of N people being sick - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+%281-%280.999%29%5En%29+for+n%3D1+to+2000 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+%281-%280.999%29%... At around the 700 mark, the probability is > 0.5. So if you are in a crowd of 700+ people, someone's likely sick. Of course, you need to have some reasonable estimate of how many are carrying the virus in a given population to do this calculation.
qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago
I would like to see every thing related to this virus, every OpEd, every info piece to be prefaced with: "Please wash your hands frequently." Hygiene is the most important thing to stopping it. Everyone needs to do it.
- balozi 7y ago
  Turns out most adults don't actually know how to properly wash their hands.
ilamont 7y ago
The outbreak attributed to a Biogen meeting in Boston had just 175 participants. 70 out of 92 confirmed cases in Massachusetts are now connected to that meeting: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/11/biogen-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/11/biogen-cor... I believe 8 have been hospitalized.
- m_a_g 7y ago
  I can't imagine what would've happened if that meeting had 1000 participants. I don't think gathering limitations can stop the spread however I believe at the very least they can slow it down.
  - dangrossman 7y ago
    Nothing will stop the spread. The goal of government and health organizations is only to slow it down so that the number of critical cases at any one time doesn't exceed the capacity of our hospitals.
    - fallmonkey 7y ago
      But China is making rather good progress so far so maybe something is able to stop the spread?
      - sulam 7y ago
        China is now seeing a wave of secondary infections as they relax travel restrictions and as people enter the country from elsewhere. They have not stopped the spread, they simply slowed it down.
        CydeWeys 7y ago
        And that in itself is a huge accomplishment that will save many lives.
        Spooky23 7y ago
1kmirror 7y ago
1984
LeoPanthera 7y ago
Santa Clara did the same, so, I guess that's the nail in the coffin for WWDC.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Also Sharks games will be no audience now.
- sroussey 7y ago
  WWDC is in June. That ban (currently) ends months before. They will likely extend. But into summer?
  - jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
    We are in March. China has been already almost 3 months in thus situation and still everything is going on. So count 3 months from now at least, and you get June easily.
  - Tepix 7y ago
    The peak of the pandemic is expected in Germany some time between June and August.
    - mintmen 7y ago
      Curious, do you have an article that talks about that? I'm supposed to attend a wedding in Germany in June..
      - Tepix 7y ago
        Here is a German podcast episode with Christian Drosten https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Infektionen-werden-weiter-steigen,audio646360.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Infektionen-werden-weite... The prediction is very uncertain, for example it looks quite good in China as of today. If we can copy their success we're good.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
1kmirror 7y ago
just remember sheeple, nothing is accidental
waynecochran 7y ago
How many homeless folks are in the largest "tent city" in SF?
- jmcgough 7y ago
  "The Jungle" in San Jose had 175 at its peak, and that was the largest encampment in the country. SF does monthly tent counts, it's been less than 500 for a while.
  - waynecochran 7y ago
    There is not the best hygene in these areas... I imagine it would spread quickly in homeless areas.
    - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
      To make things worse, most of the homeless already have chronic health issues which will make it even more difficult for them to fight off or deal with the symptoms of an infection.
      - waynecochran 7y ago
        Sounds likes SF is setting up RV's for quarantining homeless folks who have been exposed (which should assume to be everyone right?). https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/03/10/sf-setting-up-rvs-in-presidio-other-locations-to-quarantine-people-exposed-to-covid-19/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/03/10/sf-setting-up-r...
  - scrumbledober 7y ago
    I can't really believe there are less people than that in the encampments along the riverbanks in Sacramento
punnerud 7y ago
In Norway/Oslo every event over 100 have to apply a form and is banned up on approval, and over 500 will not be approved. 1m distance in restaurants. The tram don’t open the front door to avoid the driver from getting sick. In the hospital all operations are cancelled the next weeks.
luckydata 7y ago
This is ridiculous. What is wrong with leaders in the bay area? They have all the data they need to make the call to shut everything down like in Italy and by doing so saving countless lives, and they come up with bullshit like this instead. this is nonsense.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  It's the Mayor-from-Jaws problem. No politician wants to be the one who puts a bunch of local businesses into bankruptcy and makes a bunch of employed people unemployed. Even when the circumstances mean not doing so will cost lives, it's still really, really hard for a politician to do that. It pushes against every instinct in their nature. This appears to be an attempt to split that particular baby, Solomon-style. I suspect it will work out less well for them than it did for Solomon.
  - elicash 7y ago
    Yes, many small business owners are freaking out about how much time they have before they go under. There are, however, ways of addressing those problems that elected officials are considering -- for just a singular example, loans.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    As far as I know SF was the first city to declare a state of emergency a few weeks ago to begin preparing for this, and was widely mocked in political forums for panic. I am not a fan of the city administration and think the 1000 person limit is over-optimistic but it's unfair to suggest the city is trying to ignore or minimize the problem.
luckydata 7y ago
A very good source that will help you understand why this measure is complete nonsense. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop... The Bay Area is managed by leaders with no vision and no leadership, and this is just one more instance of that.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  That article literally says to start practicing social distancing ASAP. How does this directive challenge that notion? The article assures us this will be bad, but it doesn't say "fuck it all, go make out with everyone". It says to take precautions, like the one SF has done.
  - SamBam 7y ago
    I think the parent post is sayin that this is too little, not that it is too much.
    - luckydata 7y ago
      Correct. How is having gatherings of 1k people a good idea during a pandemic? The internal meeting that generated 70 cases in Boston had 170 attendants.
      - unethical_ban 7y ago
        Ah, gotcha. I think it is a matter of law vs. recommendation. It's really tricky.
tentboy 7y ago
D.C. just made an announcement https://dchealth.dc.gov/release/dc-health-advisory https://dchealth.dc.gov/release/dc-health-advisory
dijit 7y ago
Sweden did the same except more than 500 people. Wonder if that includes things like going to work, my office holds 700 or so people.
- tpmx 7y ago
  Probably not, but I'm not sure sure. There are explicit exceptions for things like public transport. I think long distance train operators should put measures into place to avoid walking between railcars (like, shut down the restaurant car).
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
Denmark - closing schools starting Monday, but if you have the ability to keep kids home do so now (so last school day Friday) for 2 weeks. Governmental employees unless necessary sent home from Friday for 2 weeks. Arrangements with more than 100 people closed down. on edit: Link to Danish news site https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2020-03-11-alle-elever-i-danmark-og-mange-offentligt-ansatte-sendes-hjem https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2020-03-11-alle-elever-i-danmark-og-m...
- duderific 7y ago
  Who is supposed to watch the children, if all the schools are closed but the parents still have to work? There's probably better child care options in Denmark; if they did that in the US, it would be a catastrophe.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    People are going to be working home in one way or another. I suppose that some people will be staying home to care for children. In the speech the Prime Minister said obviously some people would end up losing their jobs based on the current situation. I didn't follow the speech very well myself because my daughter thought it was fun to throw a one person party celebrating not going to school for two weeks, my wife started yelling she couldn't understand what was being said because my daughter was being too loud (wife being Italian has sometimes difficulties following Danish language) But anyway there are a variety of child care options in Denmark, one is thing were a person watched 3 or 4 children during the day at their house, I don't know how that is affected. I suppose it is affected the same as other services but on the other hand it might be reasonable if that was left open because I am expecting that to make the tedium somewhat manageable there will be a lot of play dates for the next couple weeks - so essentially people will have 3-4 kids at their houses they just won't be getting paid for it.
silvestrov 7y ago
Denmark right now: - events with more than 100 people forbidden - all schools will close - all non-critical employees must stay home. - all private employees as much as possible. - stay in your home. - don't travel to [many] countries, more restricts will come. Tomorrow they will create the law which forbids all kinds of events. Yesterday 262 cases, today 514. Edit: All indoor cultural institutions, libraries, leisure facilities, etc. are closed.
scottm01 7y ago
But hey if you were selected for jury duty come on down to the courthouse! https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/jury-services/jury-reporting https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/jury-services/jury... (To be fair, this morning they added a note saying call first if you are "experiencing any acute respiratory illness")
- wyattpeak 7y ago
  Jury duty's a pretty important function. It's not a particularly large gathering and keeping people detained for longer without trial (as would be a necessary consequence of stopping jury duty) is a considerable imposition. It's not an inconceivable measure, but it's not one to be taken remotely lightly - probably not until you ban all gatherings altogether.
  - scottm01 7y ago
    Agreed and clearly we start infringing on pretty basic american rights if we wait until summer to stop convening jury's. That said, reasonable people are avoiding being in closer quarters with sub-1000 people, and it seems like some assurance besides "call if you're so symptomatic you should see a doctor" might be prudent until a little more is known about the virus. Maybe I'm just salty that I have jury duty this week (:
dheera 7y ago
Why not ban events holding more than 10 people? Or even 5? Setting the bar at 1000 seems like a massive lapse of judgement in preventing exponential growth.
- intopieces 7y ago
  You're getting into 1a territory at those numbers. Is the government going to shut down churches?
  - nybble41 7y ago
    Churches can (and should, voluntarily) continue to operate without meeting in person. Many already stream their services online for the convenience of any members who can't be there due to sickness, travel, etc.
    - intopieces 7y ago
      In the US, there is precedent against the government telling churches what rituals they can and cannot perform. See: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993) [0]. I would not bank on the constitutionality the government telling Christians that they can't gather / must stream. Sure, they "should," but I doubt the government will go so far as to demand it through banning gathers >250. [0]https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948
- Tepix 7y ago
  There's a reason behind it. It depends on how what percentage of people of the population are infected. As long as the number is quite low (say 0.005%) having a meeting of 20 people will not be a great risk.
  - dheera 7y ago
    That's exactly the mentality that got Italy into their current situation. I see people downvoting me here, but I guess that's America in a nutshell. Those downvoters will be sorry in 2 weeks.
lostgame 7y ago
To all the folk talking ‘quarantine the states’ here - that’s the definition of a band-aid, not a solution. Especially since COVID is already in the states. IMHO we will be exposed to this virus no matter what.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  No offense, but please educate yourself. The point is to slow the spread of it so hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed and people who need care can get it, unlike what is happening right now in Italy. Check out flattenthecurve.com.
peter303 7y ago
Do you personally know someone with covid? With flu or cold? Covid very dangerous, but not widespread yet.
starpilot 7y ago
I wonder if anyone is trying to weaponize this to reach the GOP. Get infected, go to a Trump event, shake hands with and cough on as many people as possible.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  I know you're mad, I am too, but that kind of gloating will just push people away and worsen the political divisions that are tearing the country apart.
  - starpilot 7y ago
    Not mad at anything, and there's nothing to gloat about. I'm really just wondering if anyone is attempting this.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  At a minimum, people are joking about it and at least one actual politician joined in: https://kdvr.com/news/local/if-i-do-get-coronavirus-im-attending-every-maga-rally-i-can-denver-councilwoman-quotes-solidarity-to-tweet/ https://kdvr.com/news/local/if-i-do-get-coronavirus-im-atten...
C19is20 7y ago
N italy here: cops can now stop individuals for 'being out without good reason'. and even going to work, or medical visits, needs printed (self) permission that can be vetted by patrols. I saw a group of three people outside a gelateria, today - morons. Any authority that allows any groups to gather is being wrong. Hate to say it, but the italian government is doing the right thing - minimize the risks. I do expect panics and social unrests early next week, though, especially when the cops and carbs start getting sick.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  If they tried that in the US, the outcry would be deafening. (Especially with the current president. There would certainly be people accusing him of nefarious intent.) I think it is probably a good way to decrease human interaction. But it's not politically feasible everywhere.
  - enitihas 7y ago
    Everything becomes politically feasible once the public appetite is changed by events. All the post 9/11 events in the US (Patriot act, Iraq war) would not have been politically feasible pre 9/11.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Maybe, but our idiot president is currently trying to use the virus as an excuse to fund the wall along the Mexican border. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-border-wall-coronavirus-125007 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-border...
    - notJim 7y ago
      Neither of those were things that affected the vast majority of people in a perceptible way. A quarantine would be totally different.
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      Patriot Act and Afghanistan Invasion probably not, but the Second Iraq War was definitely feasible even without 9/11.
dang 7y ago
There are too many of these shutdown threads for HN's front page to handle. Let's at least collect the links from today. Denmark: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550108 Italy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550623 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430 E3 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22546931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22546931 U of Dayton: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22547457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22547457 Warriors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548770
- paulmd 7y ago
  Washington: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548190
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    To clarify, Washington the US state, not DC.
    - duluca 7y ago
      But also DC just published the same advisory. All events being cancelled
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > There are too many of these shutdown threads for HN's front page to handle. Really? Before the admins have broken up topics into multiple threads for HN to handle better.
  - dang 7y ago
    No doubt we've done that when the topics are separate, but that's not the case here. It doesn't make sense to have one front-page story about San Francisco banning public events, another about Denmark doing it, another about Italy doing it, three more about specific events that have been canceled, and so on. Front page space is the scarcest resource on HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20scarce&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) and the most important thing is that it not be spent too repetitively. If you or anyone is interested in how we approach this, I recently wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527396 about it, and there are lots of links there to previous descriptions.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Is this really changing anything? I suppose with over 1000 people there is more chance of an infected person being there, and more people to be interacted with. But if that infected person is walking around anyway, is it really better for them to wander the streets going to other random locations, infecting other people? I'm not sure it's an effective gesture.
new_guy 7y ago
And just like that the world walks blindfolded into Martial Law.
- ironmagma 7y ago
  You say that like it's a bad thing. This kind of situation is the only real justification for it, and it's actually a pretty good temporary measure. Key word being temporary.
Cyberdog 7y ago
I know the Constitution is already pretty much dead, but I'm still saddened that nobody in these threads is bringing up the potentially disturbing precedent of this sort of thing yet. This is literally abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble. It's not during times of crisis that we should be more willing to accept abridging of our civil rights. It's during times of crisis where the state's ability to continue respecting the civil rights of its citizens is most important. Pandemic or not, we need to hold politicians accountable when they erode civil rights like this.
8bitsrule 7y ago
In 1918 the town and county of Gunnison, Colorado quarantined itself (letting in noone) against 'Spanish Flu', to considerable effect. https://www.gunnisontimes.com/content/gunnison-and-great-influenza-0 https://www.gunnisontimes.com/content/gunnison-and-great-inf...

388 points by maerF0x0 7y ago

LegitShady 7y ago

Pretty sure contravenes constitution but whatever.

sneak 7y ago
Governments have a lot more power in the immediate moment than we like to confront; it isn’t until weeks or months later that courts (sometimes) get around to stopping them.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin... (CDC: Legal Authorities for Isolation and Quarantine) TLDR Legal and constitutional.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  According to the CDC. IME, it's somewhat common for those in positions of authority (employers, municipalities, etc.) to simply assert a legal position that benefits their leadership, without mentioning that courts may disagree. In most cases there are no repercussions for being misleading in that way, aside from eroding the trust of those lied to.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    The epidemic will be over by the time you're in front of a judge. The argument is academic.
    - gpm 7y ago
      Preliminary injunctions can happen pretty quickly...
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        No judge is going to sign off on an injunction when an epidemic is raging nationwide, with a large number of confirmed cases on the west coast [1]. I'll eat crow if you find one with that much chutzpa. [1] https://infection2020.com/ https://infection2020.com/
        munk-a 7y ago
        They may in extreme circumstances - the courts still will function and I'm sure we're going to hear a lot of BS challenges to this restriction - but if authorities step over the line and, for instance, close down a small political rally of 300 while an opponent's rally of 500 is unaffected, then injunctions will happen.
  - ken 7y ago
    According to the Supreme Court, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigation_a_Vapeur_v._Louisiana_Board_of_Health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
    - randyrand 7y ago
      That ruling is for interstate quanrentines. not within a state.
      - ken 7y ago
        Can you explain? The second paragraph of the majority decision quotes the Louisiana law which it upholds: "In case that any parish, town, or city, or any portion thereof, shall become infected with any contagious or infectious disease, to such an extent as to threaten the spread of such disease to the other portions of the state, the state board of health shall issue its proclamation declaring the facts and ordering it in quarantine, and shall order the local boards of health in other parishes, towns, and cities to quarantine against said locality" That sure sounds like it's talking about local quarantines to me.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    The legal system is explicitly set up to encourage this. Laws don't actually spell out in detail every situation to which they might apply - there's no way a legislator can foresee this. Rather, the laws provide general guidelines of legislative intent, and then if two firms disagree on what that means, they take it to court, where the judge and often jury look at the specifics of the case, the text of the laws, how similar past cases were decided, and the general principle that similar situations should be decided in similar ways. Then they come down with a decision, which becomes case law by which future cases are decided. If you want to succeed in Western countries it's worth internalizing this. In the absence of legal advice to the contrary, just assume that what you're doing is legal and assert it confidently, and most people won't challenge you. If they do, it helps to have lots of money to afford lawyers on retainer, so that a.) you're more likely to actually be right when you assert that what you're doing is legal and b.) you can craft very good arguments to persuade the judge and jury if it turns out you're wrong.
- randyrand 7y ago
  They only say that there is power to prevent movement between states or coming into the USA. And they provide no proof that states have the power to quarentine.
mc32 7y ago
Something something emergency powers...
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
At least on its surface, I'm kinda okay with this 1000-person rule for several reasons: - I've already accepted that fire codes can legitimately limit the number of people in a building. - The rule is agnostic with respect to the purpose of the meeting. E.g., it's not obviously being used to suppress political or cultural movements. - It has a real, plausible purpose for public safety. That being said, I can also see some valid reasons against it: - It sets precedent, which is a powerful factor in the U.S. court system. - The 1000-person rule seems a bit arbitrary. I would think the number needs to be much smaller for the effect to be meaningful. And I'm guessing something more nuanced is what's really needed, for example spacing between persons, air recirculation / flow rates, frequency of surface cleaning vs. # persons present, etc. - It implicitly discriminates what kinds of groups can meet as before. One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. - It also potentially prevents mass protest marches, depending on the wording of the ordinance, and how willing protestors are to ignore the ordinance.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  > One salient example would be that Christian mega-churches and really large Roman Catholic parishes couldn't meet as before. This is one scenario where I wouldn't be surprised if there are groups that refuse to uphold the order and file lawsuits over it infringing on their right to practice their religion (and assemble, of course).
  - burlesona 7y ago
    It could happen, but at least in SF it's gone the other way. The Catholic Schools were the first to close, all 90 schools are now shut down.
- ken 7y ago
  Mega-churches broadcast their sermons on TV already. They're better prepared for this than almost any other group.
  - djsumdog 7y ago
scarejunba 7y ago
Wait till you read about what will happen to you if you decide to get TB and not take your meds. You'll be sovereign citizening your way into DOT before you make a new XDR strain for us.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  In America, in most states, you do have the right to refuse treatment. Although mostly seen as a right to die for those who are terminal, cases have be brought up and gone either way for Christian Science followers depending on the situation/court.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/tb/programs/TBLawPolicyHandbook.pdf > Some jurisdictions have resolved this tension through compromise: TB patients cannot be forced to undergo treatment, but they may be isolated or detained if they refuse treatment.
jerf 7y ago
The metaphorical "lizard hindbrain" of common law, the basis of US law, has a lot of powers the governments can enact in cases of public health, both de facto and de jure. While they are not allowed to extend it past that point, they have a lot of existing power in this space. And... honestly... not a lot of sensible people are going to complain. Only the very fringes are going to object. The vast "middle" majority, in this case 98%+, is going to agree, conform, and be upset at the people objecting to the quarantine and who break it, not at the government. That counts for a lot too, in practice.
- paulmd 7y ago
  This site leans incredibly libertarian and most people are not going to have a problem with this at all. I've seen people objecting to CDC existing on the basis of federalism and the right of assembly and all kinds of other stuff and that's just so far off the reservation of well-decided legal doctrine that it might as well be freemen on the land. It's frankly a very good idea. I'd even say to lower the number to 50 or maybe 100 at most. Some of the gatherings in South Korea that are believed to have been super-spreading events have been less than that (that church group).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tzs 7y ago
It's constitutional as an exercise of California's power under the 10th Amendment. This is a pretty well settled area of Constitutional law, as the US has had plenty of epidemics of various diseases (cholera, typhus, yellow fever, influenza, and even bubonic plague) in the 19th and early 20th centuries that provided opportunity to litigate these issues.
- jameslevy 7y ago
  It will be interesting to see when this inevitably does affect political mobilization, or even just voting. There's a decent chance that we'll see some of this before the end of the year (and very possibly on Election Day).
otterley 7y ago
(I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult an licensed attorney in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) I do not believe this is unconstitutional. It is not meant to keep people from exercising their First Amendment rights. It's speech neutral (time/place/manner restrictions are subject to a much lower level of judicial scrutiny than content-based restrictions). It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces, nor prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks).
- munk-a 7y ago
  > It only applies to events in facilities owned or managed by the City of San Francisco. It does not prevent people from gathering in public spaces or prevent private venue operators who want to hold large gatherings from doing so (not that anyone with a modicum of liability insurance wants to take such risks). I'm almost certain you're incorrect due to the fact that basketball games will be effected and those aren't run by the city - teams remain private entities. This does effect intentional private gatherings in public spaces, so if you have an extended family with more than 1000 people in it then your family reunion would be effected. That said, this is absolutely legal and constitutional and that clarity lies on the backs of many historical disease outbreaks in the US that have resulted in similar restrictions.
  - otterley 7y ago
    I thought I read something the other day that said Chase Center was at least partially owned/operated by the City/County, but I could be mistaken. I might have mixed it up with Moscone Center.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I agree about it not running afoul of freedom of speech but I do wonder about the jurisprudence around freedom of assembly. Congress shall make no law ...abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
dang 7y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've done that quite a bit, and we're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

StreakyCobra 7y ago

Same measures got taken everywhere, in Switzerland it was 12 days ago [1] [1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/coronavirus_switzerland-bans-events-with-more-than-1-000-people/45585378 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/coronavirus_switzerlan...

config_yml 7y ago
We‘re now down to 150 in most cantons. In the Ticino (bordering Italy) they are closing down schools now.
- telesilla 7y ago
  Also other cities across Europe.
- StreakyCobra 7y ago
  Indeed, I wanted to point out that all countries seem to go through the same process over time. It's somehow like all countries are adopting the limitations gradually, like a bit of denial that it will really happen. Wouldn't it make sense to skip some steps and be proactive? At the end we all seem to take the direction of Italy [1], maybe we should consider quarantine directly. It may be a bit more brutal, but it will cost less lives and be over sooner. The federal council is meeting on Friday morning if I'm not mistaken, I would not be surprised to see new measures during Friday lunch. [1] https://ibb.co/gZDfgPy https://ibb.co/gZDfgPy
  - sydd 7y ago
    The issue is that this wont be contained anymore, it wont be over, we fucked up. Lets say that a country, for example Sweden with its 500 known cases and 10M population goes into a total lockdown for. A few new cases emerge and after a few weeks of no new infections they open up everything again. But since other countries are still infected, they will be reinfected within days. The only way to stop it would be if the whole world goes into lockdown for a month or so, but that wont happen. We will have to live with no mass gatherings for 1-2 years, until someone comes up with a good vaccine

owlninja 7y ago

The warriors will play tomorrow night with no fans in attendance. https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1237805678023999495 https://twitter.com/TheSteinLine/status/1237805678023999495 Also is there something significant about a limit of 1000 people? Why that number?

jedberg 7y ago
> the warriors will play tomorrow night with no fans in attendance. To be fair, after being the first team in the NBA to be eliminated from playoff contention last night, they probably weren't going to draw very large crowds anyway. Edit: Geez it was just a joke about how poorly the Warriors are doing. > Also is there something significant about a limit of 1000 people? Why that number? It's arbitrary. It's a "big" number.
- blueline 7y ago
  >To be fair, after being the first team in the NBA to be eliminated from playoff contention last night, they probably weren't going to draw very large crowds anyway. it would be shocking if several thousand people at the least weren't going to show up. the warriors are insanely popular even during this down period. you ever catch a knicks game on TV? they've been terrible for like an entire decade and there are definitely plenty of people in the seats...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- prh8 7y ago
  They've been bad all season, there's no reason for the attendance numbers to change now. The more interesting thing is that they're the top team in the league for revenue per home game.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    The German ice hockey league cancelled the playoffs for this year.

steveklabnik 7y ago

Austin has done the same, but for 2500 people https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/large-gatherings-banned-in-austin-through-may-1-city-says/ https://www.kxan.com/news/coronavirus/large-gatherings-banne...

ncallaway 7y ago
Washington State has done the same in 3 counties for events of 250+ people.

rmason 7y ago

Michigan State University is banning all meetings of over a hundred. Today they joined most universities in Michigan to go totally remote with no in person classes. The stated reason was because the first two coronavirus cases in the state were discovered last night.

RobertDeNiro 7y ago

Kind of a half measure. Why not ban all public events? Or do we expect events with less than 1000 people to not have any infected attendees ?

gpm 7y ago
What is a public event? Is me meeting up with my friend in a park a public event? Also, banning all public events is much more likely to be found unconstitutional.
- munk-a 7y ago
  If you have 1001 people in your friend group then meeting up with your friends in a park would qualify as a public event that is now restricted. Honestly, this sort of large gatherings restriction is just par for the course for epidemics, we just haven't had one that could potentially get this bad in quite a while.
- luckydata 7y ago
  yes, you shouldn't meet anyone. Stores should be all closed except for pharmacies and grocery stores. Restaurants should be closed. Bars should be closed. Offices should be closed. For about 4 weeks. This is the only way we'll avoid hundreds of casualties. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Then we’re going to have hundreds of casualties, man. I dunno, I’m very much on the side of acting quickly and decisively, but “nobody meet anyone or do anything until April” isn’t a real option.
  - uhoh-itsmaciek 7y ago
    Not that I disagree, but how many stores, restaurants, and bars can afford to close for four weeks? And are they paying their employees during this time?

pastor_elm 7y ago

And let the layoffs of event staff begin

ghaff 7y ago
It has. About a third of the full-time SXSW staff has been laid off. (And of course, countless local servers, security, caterers, registration desk people, event hall setup, etc. etc. are simply not going to get much in the way of hours over the next number of months.)
munk-a 7y ago
It's at times like this that a well funded employment-insurance fund would be pretty useful.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  Throw in some nationalized healthcare to keep these same now-uninsured people healthy.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    If only, sadly it looks like that won't be happening in the near future due to primary developments.
    - 1MoreThing 7y ago
      It wasn't going to be happening anyways. Those types of programs need to come from Congress, and there was zero coalition built to make them actually happen.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Yes, let's give Trump monopoly power over the healthcare system. I've been nothing but inspired by the government response so far.
    - 7y ago

Klonoar 7y ago

Parts of Seattle/WA just did this for 250 people or more: https://mobile.twitter.com/govinslee/status/1237791115782131712 https://mobile.twitter.com/govinslee/status/1237791115782131...

pera 7y ago

Seattle just declared a similar ban but for gatherings of 250+ people: https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-inslee-announces-new-rules-nursing-homes-assisted-living-facilities/XIDPHMLVOJAAREQ5YCL75367PU/ https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/coronavirus-inslee-announce...

29athrowaway 7y ago
That seems more reasonable.
Shivetya 7y ago
changed text because asking a simple question about how similar numbers of people does not impose the risk is met with down votes. it is bullshit dancing around the obvious, no matter how you assemble the number the threat is near the same. employer, school, rock concert, or tech conference. which do you think would exercise more care over the other? seriously, get a fucking clue people. karma to spare.
- HideousKojima 7y ago
  Schools are being kept open, despite being prime vectors for spreading the virus, thanks to diversity and inclusion! >(Q)Why isn’t the district providing online learning? >(A)Seattle Public Schools serves a diverse community with varied access to technology. We are committed to providing high-quality learning for all our students, including those who do not have access to technology or internet at home. Teachers have been asked to prepare up to 14 days of lessons in the event of a student or teacher absence. As the largest district in Washington state, this is the most equitable and fair way to ensure everyone receives the support they need and deserve. Pandemics are neither equitable nor fair. If kids don't have access to technology to watch the online materials, get them cheap Chromebooks. If they don't have internet at home, then help them get subsidized low income internet like Comcast essentials or whatever, it's like $10 a month. But no, instead, in the name of diversity and equality let's spread some disease!
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago

PeterStuer 7y ago

Over here, they did the same. Now 'organizers' are already advertising 999 person events. Talk about social responsibility.

munk-a 7y ago
Gosh I hope the hammer comes down hard on folks trying to make a buck this way if they even briefly creep over 1000 - since 1000+ events are banned maybe target events in the 100s range.
- monocasa 7y ago
  They'll have a guy out front with a clicker to keep track. It's stupid easy to comply with while still getting close to the limit.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Specifically, ensuring compliance is as easy as proving non-compliance. Unless the cops are there with a clicker, employee with a clicker wins every time.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I suspect that if it looks like a crowd close to a thousand the police will shut it down - additionally you need to count those who aren't being admitted, because everyone gathering outside of the dude with the clicker (and the dude themselves) will be in close contact as a result of the event. The clicker is effective for fire code issues (since you want to make sure X people aren't in the building) but for disease related issues you don't want those people gathering anywhere, and now 1000+ people will have been gathering (at various times of the night) just outside the venue because of the event.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      Sure, I think the limit is too high too. I just don't think there's going to be any exercising of these rules except against absolutely brazen cases of going over limit.

tanilama 7y ago

but 900 people are OK? We need to really think about this...

burlesona 7y ago
I don't think that's the implication, they just have to draw the line somewhere. I would think starting with 1000 is meant to have less dramatic impact on things like schools and workplaces with ~500 people, giving them more time to prepare before the limit goes down further.

burlesona 7y ago

I'm glad they're being this assertive now. I've been concerned that many jurisdictions in the US would wait for aggressive social distancing until the case load was already into the thousands.

SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
This is not aggressive. It's an order of magnitude too lax and over a week too late. This is a stunning abdication of leadership when we need it most. This is what's needed: https://mobile.twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1237020518781460480 https://mobile.twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1237020518781...
- Tepix 7y ago
  It may be the best way to deal with this pandemic but it's questionable if western culture is compatible with these measures. People are way more openly critical in the democracies. Protests are often infectious.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  It's amazing we had so much lead time, but American exceptionalism and the belief that ugly things only happen in other parts of the world caused us to squander it all. There's so much we could have done, but we aren't going to fully wake up until the critically ill are packed in hospital hallways.
- psychlops 7y ago
  The solution to poor leadership in crisis planning and action is not to give those same leaders unprecedented power. This sort of outbreak is exactly the type of crisis for which we rely on governments to plan. Here we are facing an oncoming hurricane and proposing draconian, untested, and unplanned solutions and people driven by fear are willing to give up any rights they have for un-guaranteed safety.

yarinr 7y ago

Israel just banned gatherings of 100 people or more. No fans in sport events. I also wonder what would fill the vacuum of all the canceled parties and nightlife, since it's pretty popular here. https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkOV11s8B8 https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkOV11s8B8

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

How often do people attend public events of 1,000 or more people? From a public health perspective, I'm sure the safest number is 0. But along the curve of 0 to 1,000 -- is the risk increase linear? Exponential? It's hard to say how effective of a measure this is in reducing spread.

dpeck 7y ago
I read this as mostly targeting sporting events and big concerts. Where groups with high numbers of infrequent attendees and a high number of events (basketball, baseball, soccer) are in close contact in the stands for several hours at a time.
munk-a 7y ago
Not often - and that's why it's so risky. Events like concerts draw random folks from diverse workplaces and communities with a shared interest that otherwise wouldn't interact, as such it tends to be a good way for the disease to break out into new communities.
- Tepix 7y ago
  Quite a few people go to a sports match with tens of thousands of visitors every fortnight.
rgovostes 7y ago
The number of potential interactions is (n 2) or nC2, which is quadratic. Here's a plot: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+Binomial%5Bn%2C+2%5D+for+n%3D1+to+1000 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+Binomial%5Bn%2C+2... Obviously this is the simplest possible way to look at it, not modeling how many of those people actually come in contact with one another, the probability of transmission, etc.
es09 7y ago
If you assume a random person has a probability of carrying the virus at 0.001, here's the probability of someone in a crowd of N people being sick - https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+%281-%280.999%29%5En%29+for+n%3D1+to+2000 https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+%281-%280.999%29%... At around the 700 mark, the probability is > 0.5. So if you are in a crowd of 700+ people, someone's likely sick. Of course, you need to have some reasonable estimate of how many are carrying the virus in a given population to do this calculation.

qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago

I would like to see every thing related to this virus, every OpEd, every info piece to be prefaced with: "Please wash your hands frequently." Hygiene is the most important thing to stopping it. Everyone needs to do it.

balozi 7y ago
Turns out most adults don't actually know how to properly wash their hands.

ilamont 7y ago

The outbreak attributed to a Biogen meeting in Boston had just 175 participants. 70 out of 92 confirmed cases in Massachusetts are now connected to that meeting: https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/11/biogen-coronavirus-outbreak https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2020/03/11/biogen-cor... I believe 8 have been hospitalized.

m_a_g 7y ago
I can't imagine what would've happened if that meeting had 1000 participants. I don't think gathering limitations can stop the spread however I believe at the very least they can slow it down.
- dangrossman 7y ago
  Nothing will stop the spread. The goal of government and health organizations is only to slow it down so that the number of critical cases at any one time doesn't exceed the capacity of our hospitals.
  - fallmonkey 7y ago
    But China is making rather good progress so far so maybe something is able to stop the spread?
    - sulam 7y ago
      China is now seeing a wave of secondary infections as they relax travel restrictions and as people enter the country from elsewhere. They have not stopped the spread, they simply slowed it down.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        And that in itself is a huge accomplishment that will save many lives.
      - Spooky23 7y ago

1kmirror 7y ago

1984

LeoPanthera 7y ago

Santa Clara did the same, so, I guess that's the nail in the coffin for WWDC.

jedberg 7y ago
Also Sharks games will be no audience now.
sroussey 7y ago
WWDC is in June. That ban (currently) ends months before. They will likely extend. But into summer?
- jfkebwjsbx 7y ago
  We are in March. China has been already almost 3 months in thus situation and still everything is going on. So count 3 months from now at least, and you get June easily.
- Tepix 7y ago
  The peak of the pandemic is expected in Germany some time between June and August.
  - mintmen 7y ago
    Curious, do you have an article that talks about that? I'm supposed to attend a wedding in Germany in June..
    - Tepix 7y ago
      Here is a German podcast episode with Christian Drosten https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Infektionen-werden-weiter-steigen,audio646360.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/Infektionen-werden-weite... The prediction is very uncertain, for example it looks quite good in China as of today. If we can copy their success we're good.
- anigbrowl 7y ago

1kmirror 7y ago

just remember sheeple, nothing is accidental

waynecochran 7y ago

How many homeless folks are in the largest "tent city" in SF?

jmcgough 7y ago
"The Jungle" in San Jose had 175 at its peak, and that was the largest encampment in the country. SF does monthly tent counts, it's been less than 500 for a while.
- waynecochran 7y ago
  There is not the best hygene in these areas... I imagine it would spread quickly in homeless areas.
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    To make things worse, most of the homeless already have chronic health issues which will make it even more difficult for them to fight off or deal with the symptoms of an infection.
    - waynecochran 7y ago
      Sounds likes SF is setting up RV's for quarantining homeless folks who have been exposed (which should assume to be everyone right?). https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/03/10/sf-setting-up-rvs-in-presidio-other-locations-to-quarantine-people-exposed-to-covid-19/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/03/10/sf-setting-up-r...
- scrumbledober 7y ago
  I can't really believe there are less people than that in the encampments along the riverbanks in Sacramento

punnerud 7y ago

In Norway/Oslo every event over 100 have to apply a form and is banned up on approval, and over 500 will not be approved. 1m distance in restaurants. The tram don’t open the front door to avoid the driver from getting sick. In the hospital all operations are cancelled the next weeks.

luckydata 7y ago

This is ridiculous. What is wrong with leaders in the bay area? They have all the data they need to make the call to shut everything down like in Italy and by doing so saving countless lives, and they come up with bullshit like this instead. this is nonsense.

smacktoward 7y ago
It's the Mayor-from-Jaws problem. No politician wants to be the one who puts a bunch of local businesses into bankruptcy and makes a bunch of employed people unemployed. Even when the circumstances mean not doing so will cost lives, it's still really, really hard for a politician to do that. It pushes against every instinct in their nature. This appears to be an attempt to split that particular baby, Solomon-style. I suspect it will work out less well for them than it did for Solomon.
- elicash 7y ago
  Yes, many small business owners are freaking out about how much time they have before they go under. There are, however, ways of addressing those problems that elected officials are considering -- for just a singular example, loans.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  As far as I know SF was the first city to declare a state of emergency a few weeks ago to begin preparing for this, and was widely mocked in political forums for panic. I am not a fan of the city administration and think the 1000 person limit is over-optimistic but it's unfair to suggest the city is trying to ignore or minimize the problem.

luckydata 7y ago

A very good source that will help you understand why this measure is complete nonsense. https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop... The Bay Area is managed by leaders with no vision and no leadership, and this is just one more instance of that.

unethical_ban 7y ago
That article literally says to start practicing social distancing ASAP. How does this directive challenge that notion? The article assures us this will be bad, but it doesn't say "fuck it all, go make out with everyone". It says to take precautions, like the one SF has done.
- SamBam 7y ago
  I think the parent post is sayin that this is too little, not that it is too much.
  - luckydata 7y ago
    Correct. How is having gatherings of 1k people a good idea during a pandemic? The internal meeting that generated 70 cases in Boston had 170 attendants.
    - unethical_ban 7y ago
      Ah, gotcha. I think it is a matter of law vs. recommendation. It's really tricky.

tentboy 7y ago

D.C. just made an announcement https://dchealth.dc.gov/release/dc-health-advisory https://dchealth.dc.gov/release/dc-health-advisory

dijit 7y ago

Sweden did the same except more than 500 people. Wonder if that includes things like going to work, my office holds 700 or so people.

tpmx 7y ago
Probably not, but I'm not sure sure. There are explicit exceptions for things like public transport. I think long distance train operators should put measures into place to avoid walking between railcars (like, shut down the restaurant car).

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

Denmark - closing schools starting Monday, but if you have the ability to keep kids home do so now (so last school day Friday) for 2 weeks. Governmental employees unless necessary sent home from Friday for 2 weeks. Arrangements with more than 100 people closed down. on edit: Link to Danish news site https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2020-03-11-alle-elever-i-danmark-og-mange-offentligt-ansatte-sendes-hjem https://nyheder.tv2.dk/2020-03-11-alle-elever-i-danmark-og-m...

duderific 7y ago
Who is supposed to watch the children, if all the schools are closed but the parents still have to work? There's probably better child care options in Denmark; if they did that in the US, it would be a catastrophe.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  People are going to be working home in one way or another. I suppose that some people will be staying home to care for children. In the speech the Prime Minister said obviously some people would end up losing their jobs based on the current situation. I didn't follow the speech very well myself because my daughter thought it was fun to throw a one person party celebrating not going to school for two weeks, my wife started yelling she couldn't understand what was being said because my daughter was being too loud (wife being Italian has sometimes difficulties following Danish language) But anyway there are a variety of child care options in Denmark, one is thing were a person watched 3 or 4 children during the day at their house, I don't know how that is affected. I suppose it is affected the same as other services but on the other hand it might be reasonable if that was left open because I am expecting that to make the tedium somewhat manageable there will be a lot of play dates for the next couple weeks - so essentially people will have 3-4 kids at their houses they just won't be getting paid for it.

silvestrov 7y ago

Denmark right now: - events with more than 100 people forbidden - all schools will close - all non-critical employees must stay home. - all private employees as much as possible. - stay in your home. - don't travel to [many] countries, more restricts will come. Tomorrow they will create the law which forbids all kinds of events. Yesterday 262 cases, today 514. Edit: All indoor cultural institutions, libraries, leisure facilities, etc. are closed.

scottm01 7y ago

But hey if you were selected for jury duty come on down to the courthouse! https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/jury-services/jury-reporting https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/jury-services/jury... (To be fair, this morning they added a note saying call first if you are "experiencing any acute respiratory illness")

wyattpeak 7y ago
Jury duty's a pretty important function. It's not a particularly large gathering and keeping people detained for longer without trial (as would be a necessary consequence of stopping jury duty) is a considerable imposition. It's not an inconceivable measure, but it's not one to be taken remotely lightly - probably not until you ban all gatherings altogether.
- scottm01 7y ago
  Agreed and clearly we start infringing on pretty basic american rights if we wait until summer to stop convening jury's. That said, reasonable people are avoiding being in closer quarters with sub-1000 people, and it seems like some assurance besides "call if you're so symptomatic you should see a doctor" might be prudent until a little more is known about the virus. Maybe I'm just salty that I have jury duty this week (:

dheera 7y ago

Why not ban events holding more than 10 people? Or even 5? Setting the bar at 1000 seems like a massive lapse of judgement in preventing exponential growth.

intopieces 7y ago
You're getting into 1a territory at those numbers. Is the government going to shut down churches?
- nybble41 7y ago
  Churches can (and should, voluntarily) continue to operate without meeting in person. Many already stream their services online for the convenience of any members who can't be there due to sickness, travel, etc.
  - intopieces 7y ago
    In the US, there is precedent against the government telling churches what rituals they can and cannot perform. See: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993) [0]. I would not bank on the constitutionality the government telling Christians that they can't gather / must stream. Sure, they "should," but I doubt the government will go so far as to demand it through banning gathers >250. [0]https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-948
Tepix 7y ago
There's a reason behind it. It depends on how what percentage of people of the population are infected. As long as the number is quite low (say 0.005%) having a meeting of 20 people will not be a great risk.
- dheera 7y ago
  That's exactly the mentality that got Italy into their current situation. I see people downvoting me here, but I guess that's America in a nutshell. Those downvoters will be sorry in 2 weeks.

lostgame 7y ago

To all the folk talking ‘quarantine the states’ here - that’s the definition of a band-aid, not a solution. Especially since COVID is already in the states. IMHO we will be exposed to this virus no matter what.

asdfman123 7y ago
No offense, but please educate yourself. The point is to slow the spread of it so hospitals don't get completely overwhelmed and people who need care can get it, unlike what is happening right now in Italy. Check out flattenthecurve.com.

peter303 7y ago

Do you personally know someone with covid? With flu or cold? Covid very dangerous, but not widespread yet.

starpilot 7y ago

I wonder if anyone is trying to weaponize this to reach the GOP. Get infected, go to a Trump event, shake hands with and cough on as many people as possible.

asdfman123 7y ago
I know you're mad, I am too, but that kind of gloating will just push people away and worsen the political divisions that are tearing the country apart.
- starpilot 7y ago
  Not mad at anything, and there's nothing to gloat about. I'm really just wondering if anyone is attempting this.
TallGuyShort 7y ago
At a minimum, people are joking about it and at least one actual politician joined in: https://kdvr.com/news/local/if-i-do-get-coronavirus-im-attending-every-maga-rally-i-can-denver-councilwoman-quotes-solidarity-to-tweet/ https://kdvr.com/news/local/if-i-do-get-coronavirus-im-atten...

C19is20 7y ago

N italy here: cops can now stop individuals for 'being out without good reason'. and even going to work, or medical visits, needs printed (self) permission that can be vetted by patrols. I saw a group of three people outside a gelateria, today - morons. Any authority that allows any groups to gather is being wrong. Hate to say it, but the italian government is doing the right thing - minimize the risks. I do expect panics and social unrests early next week, though, especially when the cops and carbs start getting sick.

RickJWagner 7y ago
If they tried that in the US, the outcry would be deafening. (Especially with the current president. There would certainly be people accusing him of nefarious intent.) I think it is probably a good way to decrease human interaction. But it's not politically feasible everywhere.
- enitihas 7y ago
  Everything becomes politically feasible once the public appetite is changed by events. All the post 9/11 events in the US (Patriot act, Iraq war) would not have been politically feasible pre 9/11.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Maybe, but our idiot president is currently trying to use the virus as an excuse to fund the wall along the Mexican border. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-border-wall-coronavirus-125007 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-border...
  - notJim 7y ago
    Neither of those were things that affected the vast majority of people in a perceptible way. A quarantine would be totally different.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    Patriot Act and Afghanistan Invasion probably not, but the Second Iraq War was definitely feasible even without 9/11.

dang 7y ago

There are too many of these shutdown threads for HN's front page to handle. Let's at least collect the links from today. Denmark: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550108 Italy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550623 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22545430 E3 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22546931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22546931 U of Dayton: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22547457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22547457 Warriors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548770

paulmd 7y ago
Washington: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22548190
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  To clarify, Washington the US state, not DC.
  - duluca 7y ago
    But also DC just published the same advisory. All events being cancelled
paulddraper 7y ago
> There are too many of these shutdown threads for HN's front page to handle. Really? Before the admins have broken up topics into multiple threads for HN to handle better.
- dang 7y ago
  No doubt we've done that when the topics are separate, but that's not the case here. It doesn't make sense to have one front-page story about San Francisco banning public events, another about Denmark doing it, another about Italy doing it, three more about specific events that have been canceled, and so on. Front page space is the scarcest resource on HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20scarce&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) and the most important thing is that it not be spent too repetitively. If you or anyone is interested in how we approach this, I recently wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22527396 about it, and there are lots of links there to previous descriptions.

RickJWagner 7y ago

Is this really changing anything? I suppose with over 1000 people there is more chance of an infected person being there, and more people to be interacted with. But if that infected person is walking around anyway, is it really better for them to wander the streets going to other random locations, infecting other people? I'm not sure it's an effective gesture.

new_guy 7y ago

And just like that the world walks blindfolded into Martial Law.

ironmagma 7y ago
You say that like it's a bad thing. This kind of situation is the only real justification for it, and it's actually a pretty good temporary measure. Key word being temporary.

Cyberdog 7y ago

I know the Constitution is already pretty much dead, but I'm still saddened that nobody in these threads is bringing up the potentially disturbing precedent of this sort of thing yet. This is literally abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble. It's not during times of crisis that we should be more willing to accept abridging of our civil rights. It's during times of crisis where the state's ability to continue respecting the civil rights of its citizens is most important. Pandemic or not, we need to hold politicians accountable when they erode civil rights like this.

8bitsrule 7y ago

In 1918 the town and county of Gunnison, Colorado quarantined itself (letting in noone) against 'Spanish Flu', to considerable effect. https://www.gunnisontimes.com/content/gunnison-and-great-influenza-0 https://www.gunnisontimes.com/content/gunnison-and-great-inf...