11 ms·

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-as

• 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
      School districts of families that cannot afford internet also are school districts that are so poorly funded that subsidized internet and cheap chromebooks are not an option. Additionally, schools may be the only time these kids are able to get real food.
      • HideousKojima 7y ago
        Then stream classes and let kids who do have access to internet and technology do their courses online while still keeping the classes running in person, so you can limit the amount of people who need to congregate. No need to go Harrison Bergeron on the haves to make the have-nots feel less shitty. Also, the state has emergency funds that would more than cover something like Chromebook purchases and subsidizing internet for a few months. Still wouldn't help the homeless students, but it would still make a sizeable dent in the amount of kids congregating and getting each other sick. EDIT: Also poor schools and districts have HIGHER per pupil funding than wealthier ones
        • SolaceQuantum 7y ago
          Classes may not be equipped for streaming at all. Additionally, chromebook and internet may not be helpful for children living in dangerous housing where their chromebooks may be stolen or pawned for food (after which internet means nothing) or in cases where internet may take days or weeks to be installed. Additionally, this does not address that schools are often a major source of food for children. Or safety for children.
    • selectodude 7y ago
      Talk about completely missing the point. Seattle Public Schools has thousands of homeless students, and thousands more where school is their only reliable meal. It's not about "access to technology", it's about keeping a safe place open for these kids without straight up coming out and saying that's what its about because then you'd have to deal with the "MINORITIES GETTING SOCIALISM" brigade and it's simply easier to use delicate language.
  • pera 7y ago
    This one also came just a few minutes ago: https://kuow.org/stories/seattle-public-schools-closes-for-two-weeks-due-to-coronavirus-outbreak https://kuow.org/stories/seattle-public-schools-closes-for-t...
  • humanlion87 7y ago
    My understanding is that the ban also excludes work.
  • perennate 7y ago
    Here is the text, it does not include office: > Gatherings of 250 people or more for social, spiritual and recreational activities including, but not limited to, community, civic, public, leisure, faith-based, or sporting events; parades; concerts; festivals; conventions; fundraisers; and similar activities Source: https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/20-07%20Coronavirus%20%28tmp%29.pdf https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/20-07%20Coro...
    • throwaway123x2 7y ago
      Gotta feel for any people getting married this weekend...
    • hef19898 7y ago
      Spiritual is a good point. One such event in France is the reason the region I visited family roughly two weeks ago got declared high risk today. So quarantine at home until Sunday, turning our house into a co-working space with attached school and day care (my wife, our two kids and myself)!
  • kelnos 7y ago
    It doesn't affect large employers or schools because those things aren't "public events". The idea here is to reduce, not eliminate, large numbers of people coming together, especially cases where it's going to be a one-off grouping of people who may not normally be in the same place at one time. Depending on the event, it could also involve people traveling from somewhere else, which is also useful to reduce. (Corporate campuses and schools don't fall into that bucket.) It's a trade off. Saying "no more large employers and no more schools" just isn't feasible from an economic or public education standpoint. Individual organizations can decide for themselves whether or not they want to shut down. It's a continuum. On one end there's "everyone is hereby confined to their homes and may not leave", and on the other it's "we're making no changes; everyone just do what they usually do". The first one is way too restrictive, and the second one ignores the reality of the situation. The sweet spot is somewhere in between. Picking and choosing what types of gatherings of large numbers of people to allow can help slow spread. Could they restrict more? Sure, but a lot of people (myself included) might consider that unreasonable.
    • wolco 7y ago
      Does the outbreak need to be larger million+ or deadlier for you to consider it reasonable?
  • chrisseaton 7y ago
    > How does that affect employers with more than that number on campus at any one time? Is a day in the office a 'public event'? No. So I guess it doesn't effect affect it.
    • tclancy 7y ago
      The way I do it it is.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• randomfool 7y ago
  I was hoping they'd limit it to 100, or even 50. I don't see what 200+ gatherings they believe are safe to the public at this point. There's little downside to decisions like this- healthcare is most likely going to be overwhelmed even with these changes, may as well do everything you can. Be a leader. Make the tough decisions now.
  • rdtwo 7y ago
    Even under 250 needs special precautions and plan
  • nostromo 7y ago
    They did. All public gatherings are banned without special precautions. All larger than 250 are now banned even with special precautions.
• mrweasel 7y ago
  The entire country of Denmark has just ban gatherings of more than 100 and basically shutdown the country.
• joncp 7y ago
  Not just Seattle. All of Washington.
  • frosted-flakes 7y ago
    Everything I've read says the Seattle area; specifically, King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. Do you have a source for "all of Washington" state?
    • joncp 7y ago
      You’re correct. I’d delete my previous comment but it’s stuck there, etched in stone