16 ms·

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

108 points by mrfusion 6y ago

spamizbad 6y ago
Great way to give a bunch of young adults a criminal records. Get that rap sheet established early.
paulgb 6y ago
The story posted here reports the implications of the ban on college sports, but this may be a more informative article on the ban in general: https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-order-halting-gatherings-for-college-aged-residents-coronavirus/amp/ https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues...
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can encourage just the at-risk to isolate and end up with like 18 low-risk and 2 high-risk. It should be self evident which course is better. Unfortunately the world has been tricked into viewing “herd immunity” as a dirty word as opposed to an emergent phenomenom. Arbitrary and capricious regulations like this aren’t just ethically wrong, they’ee bad public health. Unfortunately the disastrous Jacobson v Massachusetts decision laid the groundwork for this stuff. The Jacobson decision was later used to justify forced sterilization of the mentally retarded, as just one example of where a collectivist, “for the greater good” mentality inevitably takes you.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Jacobson v MA also formed the basis for Korematsu, the case that justified the suspension of Japanese Americans' human rights on the basis of their ethnicity. Jacobson and its descendant Buck, then Korematsu, are among the most shameful moments in the history of the law in America.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    I would love to see the decisions overturned. Maybe with a majority originalist/textualist SCOTUS there’s a chance. I’m not holding my breath though.
    - microcolonel 6y ago
      I hope the President chooses Allison Jones Rushing or Barbara Lagoa, because Amy Coney Barrett has cited Jacobson favourably.
      - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
        I saw that too. I'm not sure how to feel about it. I know that lower courts are bound to uphold precedent via vertical stare decisis, but it sounds like even with the precedent as a given, she might have stretched it in a way she wasn't forced to. Do you have any thoughts here? ACB seems like the perfect candidate except for exactly what you mentioned. So I am very curious how much of that was her hands being tied versus her being unusually authoritarian. Because if it's the latter, I absolutely share your concern.
- marcell 6y ago
  One thing that amazes is me is how the individual rights objections to these orders get so little credit. People go into deep discussions of whether the cost/benefit makes sense (do you save sufficient lives with a measure to offset the cost of the restrictions). As you point out, this is collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place. There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    "collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place." You can't proclaim this as a universal principle. Modern civilisation requires a significant amount of collectivism. Think of the justice system. Back in 18th century England prisoners were charged for being in Jail and by judges to be judged - with massive corruption. Courts were not open to public. There was no police or detectives - they were seen as totalitarian and opressive. Arrests depended on hue and cry and violent criminals openly boasted of their deeds in pubs
  - enjeyw 6y ago
    >There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose. I agree that "being able to gather with your friends" is a great thing, but I don't see why it's a sacred right that is "outrageous" to restrict no matter the consequences. Like a lot of these debates, this sort of things comes down to your personal beliefs in the relative importances of: - "The right as an invididual to do X" - "The right as an individual to not be negatively affected by someone else doing X" Most actions all on the spectrum somewhere: "Society has decided it's acceptable for me to drive a car, even though it puts pedestrians at risk of being run over" "Society has decided that it's not acceptable for me to drive a car when intoxicated, even if's really inconvenient for me to get a taxi home, because the risk of me killing a pedistrian is too high" "Society isn't quite sure what the maximum speed that I can drive a car at on a surban street (and get to my destination faster, while increasing the risk of killing someone), but it's not 'as fast as I can go', and it's not '2 MPH'". Its the same with "the right to gather with friends, and in the process increase the chances that I'll get COVID and pass it on to someone who dies from it". Simply declaring it "outrageous" not to maintain that right is overly simplistic, and I think that actually, some form of utilitiarian thinking is very helpful. In short, you can't just reject utilitarian thinking just because your utility function is different to that of society's.
- jtsiskin 6y ago
  Does herd immunity work for COVID-19? I though we did not yet know whether infection leads to future immunity. Even better than 18 low-risk and 2 high risk is 2 low-risk and 2 high-risk. I think the intention here is to reduce infections until a vaccine comes out
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Good question. Ordinarily I would say that the fact that you're even asking is totally ridiculous, but the narrative has actually been spread that herd immunity is a myth for COVID-19 - which is false - so I absolutely understand your question. Unfortunately there are literally factions out there trying to convince people that this thing is impossible to build immunity to, which again is false. Have some studies: ["Neutralizing and binding antibody kinetics of COVID-19 patients during hospital and convalescent phases"](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.18.20156810v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.18.20156810v...) - Published July 18 2020 - Based on these half-life data, we estimate that the median times for IgM, IgA and IgG to become seronegative are 4.59 (IQR 4.12-5.03), 7.78 (IQR 6.71-9.16) and 42.72 (IQR 33.75-47.96) months post disease onset. - This study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust neutralizing and binding antibody responses in patients and that humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 acquired by infection may persist for a relatively long time. ["SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust, neutralizing antibody responses that are stable for at least three months"](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v...) - July 17, 2020 - Here we report that the vast majority of infected individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 experience robust IgG antibody responses against the viral spike protein, based on a dataset of 19,860 individuals screened at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. - We also show that titers are stable for at least a period approximating three months, and that anti-spike binding titers significantly correlate with neutralization of authentic SARS-CoV-2. Our data suggests that more than 90% of seroconverters make detectible neutralizing antibody responses and that these titers are stable for at least the near-term future. -------- BTW, there's something called immunological memory, your memory B/T cells persist for decades. So even if you, say, were only fully immune to reinfection for 1 week, you could still get to herd immunity by building up enough immunological memory since the presence of memory B/T cells will reduce transmission. Anyway, fortunately COVID-19 produces immunity of several months at least.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  Are there any professional epidemiologists advocating for natural herd immunity as a goal? I'm not an expert but what I've seen is them saying the opposite. Here's one example https://www.islandpacket.com/news/coronavirus/article245833935.html https://www.islandpacket.com/news/coronavirus/article2458339...
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Yes there are, they’re just not elevated because the powers that be like the epidemiologists that justify authoritarianism. First of all, Anders Tegnell set Sweden’s policy and has been a brilliant voice of reason. Check out Michael Levitt, Martin Kuelhoff, Jay Bhattachargee. There’s a lot more but I’m on mobile and need to get back to my computer first to dig through my notes. Just be warned, if you actually research this issue - I’ve probably read 40 papers in the last 3 months, you might find it incredibly depressing, because it’s not even that we traded freedom for safety: we traded both away for nothing. Lockdown worsens COVID—19 mortality IMO, let alone the second order ramifications. Herd immunity is a natural emergent phenomenon and is how ALL infectious diseases stop being a threat. Just remember herd immunity does not mean eradication, it just means no more exponential spread. But tldr: - Learn about immunological memory - Learn about t cell cross reactivity: exposure to non-sars hcovs confers protection - learn the simplistic herd immunity formula based off of the basic reproduction number, then learn how to think about heterogenity which makes the true HIT lower than the simplistic 1-1/R_0 implies - learn that severe covid-19 kills vis pathological cytokine release syndrome and thus is an immunoregulatory disorder which logically would be worsened by lack of sunlight (vit d + nitric oxide), lack of sleep, lack of exercise, and excessive stress/fear, all results of lockdown - read research literature on cloth masks published before the covid mass delusion ever happened; they are unanimous in showing that cloth masks make things worse
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
djhaskin987 6y ago
A waste management map from my county (Utah County in Utah) reveals that the three waste management districts that were servicing the two universities in the area were absolutely the red hot spots for covid-19. The two University presidents wrote a letter jointly telling the college students if they did not shape up The universities would be closed. Our governor applauded the letter and I don't think he was wrong. I don't care what anyone says. An 18-year-old is an adult and they need to take that responsibility seriously.
- nugget 6y ago
  At what point does the responsibility shift to the University Presidents if they can predict with confidence (and then confirm with data) that their students will never comply with their directives?
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    >wrote a letter jointly telling the college students if they did not shape up The universities _would be closed_ I think from this we could infer that they will take responsibility when they think it becomes clearer that students will not sufficiently comply with the public safety directives.
    - Dfol 6y ago
      It just so happens that in your scenario the college makes more money by 'taking responsibility'.
  - sonotathrowaway 6y ago
    My more cynical interpretation is that the school wanted to shift the onus onto the students, because more effective measures would have affected the schools ability to charge tuition at it’s full rate.
    - dillondoyle 6y ago
      I don't think it's cynical. there is no way schools reasonably and realistically thought they could control COVID in a university environment. If they did they were negligent. It's 100% about cashing the checks before the withdrawal period. Who wants to pay $40,000 for online classes. Young kids is completely different we aren't doing enough and there aren't a ton of other options but to open schools. But in person college for adults? not a necessity
trentnix 6y ago
...and this measure is based on what science?
eplanit 6y ago
The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy (if it's about science).
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  >The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy (if it's about science). Doing some quick Googling about the scientists at the head of US public policy on the subject: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-colleges-fauci-urges-schools-keep-students-campus-outbreaks-n1238997 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-colleges... The scientists seem to say 1) don't send students home and 2) contain them so they don't cause further outbreaks at universities. So the suggestion of ending youth public gatherings at a university seems in-line with the science.
  - Cola 6y ago
    They aren't ending them, though. Just prohibiting them. It seems comically naive to expect that the population that faces virtually zero downside and has the greatest propensity for risky behavior would obey such an order.
    - ls612 6y ago
      If you expel or jail a few to make an example it would probably cow the rest. (In case anyone isn’t certain, I do not support this line of thinking. But since authoritarianism is fashionable nowadays I fully expect it to happen)
mherdeg 6y ago
Here's some more coverage: https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-ban-on-gatherings-for-college-aged-people-to-help-stop-coronavirus-spread-linked-to-cu/ https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-ban-on-... Here's the text of the order: https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/public-health-order/ https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/publ... The text says in part: ""Gathering: more than one individual coming together or being physically near each other for any shared and common purpose, including socializing or participating in any activity together including but not limited to shopping, dining, or exercising. A gathering does not include employees of any business while performing work for that business or any classroom learning activity explicitly permitted by the University of Colorado. Members of the same household while in their shared household space (e.g. a dorm room) together are not considered a gathering."" They've excluded people at work, so I suppose this allows people in this age range to provide childcare for essential workers, work in health care or at grocery stores, etc.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  > They've excluded people at work, so I suppose this allows people in this age range to provide childcare for essential workers, work in health care or at grocery stores, etc. How kind of our benevolent overlords. We can still partake in the economic machinery! Just none of that pesky “living your life” stuff. I’m surprised they haven’t banned laughter yet. It spreads SARS-CoV-2-laden respiratory droplets like nothing else.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    Roseanne Barr and Tim Dillon did a podcast recently and there was a part I loved so much, “at this point anyone who can’t laugh - you gotta go.” You want to find the authoritarians among us? Find the people who are unable to laugh and make it known that no one else should.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      Oh believe me, I have found the authoritarians. I did not realize how many of my friends would callously and unquestioningly swallow the narrative and obey. (Many of my closest friends see through the narrative, partially because I wouldn’t shut up about it once I started reading the research and really realized how big of a mistake we’d made as a society) It’s kind of like how everyone thinks that they would have opposed the Nazis because they grew up being taught that Nazis were bad. The truth is, this experiment in mass collective delusion has made it very clear which among us would have spoken out. The ones reporting their neighbors for having a gathering or not wearing a mask while watering their lawn would have happily helped participate in genocide. Don’t doubt it.
senthil_rajasek 6y ago
The article does not say anything about what if any data was used to make this decision. Conflating this as a human rights issue as some commenters have tried to on this thread is a dangerous trend. In other cities, like La crosse, WI for instance college campuses tended to be the hotspots. The same was true of senior housing a few months back. So I am leaning towards the public health officials targeting this based on data for hotspots and demographics and not just to ground some group of people. The virus needs to be quashed and NY is the evidence.
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  Human rights are always dangerous.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  It’s a human rights issue regardless of the data, and your assertion that “the virus needs to be quashed” goes against reality. We’re not practicing containment in the US, therefore this virus WILL diffuse through the population. All we can choose is how many lives we want to destroy before we accept that reality. (By the way, even if we were practicing containment - which we’re not - it would still eventually spread. Look at New Zealand for an example of the folly of human hubris). They are undertaking this measure because of a spike in COVID “cases” (read: positive PCR test results). A spike in cases without a corresponding increase in deaths or hospitalizations should be a good thing, but we treat it the same as having an equivalent number of centenarians get sick. Completely absurd and it goes against everything we knew about public health before this mass global hysteria took root.
  - senthil_rajasek 6y ago
    It is a public health issue. What about the rights of people that are vulnerable. Why would public policy risk fatality of the vulnerable population over restricted movement of a few targeted populace in an emergency. The reality is that compared to March New York city in September has quashed the virus, per data.
    - 6y ago
rdtwo 6y ago
Why not just gather in the neighboring city?
- Balgair 6y ago
  The old saying is that Boulder is seven square miles between the mountains and reality. You can buy passports on Pearl St. to get into Boulder. It's kinda it's own little world. The next town over is Louisville, which has pretty much nothing for a 18-22 year old to do. Or Longmonth, which also has pretty much nothing to do. Denver is ~30 min away depending on traffic. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boulder,+CO/@39.949631,-105.2541145,10.03z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x876b8d4e278dafd3:0xc8393b7ca01b8058!8m2!3d40.0149856!4d-105.2705456 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boulder,+CO/@39.949631,-10...
  - rdtwo 6y ago
    It’s true bolder is the Berkeley of Colorado
  - peapicker 6y ago
    Louisville and Longmont, both in Boulder County, are also subject to this prohibition as is is a county-wide regulation.
    - Balgair 6y ago
      Oh, thank you, my mistake!
the_benno 6y ago
As a 27-year-old CU PhD student and staff member, I just want to say that this is a welcome development. The university recklessly opened this fall without adequate security measures in place over the loud protests of faculty and staff, and (surprised_pikachu.jpg) now Boulder is facing a massive outbreak clearly attributable to campus' opening [1]. My friends, colleagues, and community are being directly endangered by CU's obfuscation of case data, refusal to provide comprehensive testing, and foot-dragging on promised safety measures. It's ridiculous that the city/county are being forced to mitigate the downstream effects of this doomed-from-the-beginning plan, but the "run it like a business" university administration is a lost cause. [1] https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covid-19-illness-and-recovery/ https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covi...
- jb775 6y ago
  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken....And the entire point of lockdowns was to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It's so frustrating watching Democrat leaders (Jill Hunsaker Ryan in this case) put plans into place that aren't backed by ACTUAL evidence, blame others when their plans end up not working, refuse to pivot upon receiving new information, refuse to acknowledge when previous data is found to be inaccurate....all while trampling on the constitutional rights of American citizens.
  - atomi 6y ago
    > People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken This is so wrong. One has to really wonder what motivates you. Mask wearing alone, a simple action, dramatically lowers predicted infection rates
    - lbeltrame 6y ago
      There is yet no evidence that explicitly ties the use of a face mask to lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A lot of the published evidence is either inconsistent, or indirect (measurement of droplets, but that doesn't take physical barriers like nose and mouth, or the viral load required to overcome the non adaptive immune system). In fact, it has been argued that non pharmacological interventions should be evaluated with better evidence [1]. A Danish clinical trial enrolling 3000 people will probably give some more concrete answers. OTOH, hand washing and distance are definitely useful to reduce spread. P.S. Feel free to state your disagreement explicitly instead of downvoting. [1] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/08/28/margaret-mccartney-we-need-better-evidence-on-non-drug-interventions-for-covid-19/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/08/28/margaret-mccartney-we-n...
InTheArena 6y ago
I live in boulder. So the issue here is really that the university of Colorado has a number of students who are flagrantly ignoring masking rules. They also have a administration that opened the campus. Boulder is a very left leaning city, has a department of health that has decided to be extremely expansive with their mandate in boulder county. Churches and public schools are still closed. But there is a tricky issue in that the state constitution keeps bolder from regulating CU. The majority of cases in Colorado are now from CU. That’s why they’ve structured at the way they have, because they cannot regulate CU directly. So the question becomes is this a violation of the bill of rights? You’d have to be able to argue that the governments actions are designed to be punitive, rather than protective. As much as Boulder has consistently overstepped itself, I think this still meets that criteria. As a sidenote, for all of the politicking about red state versus blue state, it is definitely millennials and zoomer‘s that I see without masks. Doesn’t bode well for the future. Also Boulder and CU have had this war going on for quite a while independent of covid. It got to the point where the University even decided to purchase a quarry to get around Boulder restrictions.
- slimed 6y ago
  So the solution is to lock the kids alone in their dorms? What a nightmare. Forbidding human contact with anyone is the most extreme covid restriction I've ever heard of. A clear violation of human rights.
  - InTheArena 6y ago
    The way the students were acting are putting other peoples lives at risk. It’s not straightforward.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I'm just not sure what that has to do with it. If they're engaging in specific risky behavior, maybe it's justified to ban that risky behavior, but you can't just tell an entire age bracket they've been naughty and ground them for 2 weeks as punishment.
slaymaker1907 6y ago
In this case I think the ages are a distraction. This is clearly a violation of the constitution even given Covid due to it essentially banning a large section of the population from something as fundamental as visiting friends.
- MrStephenJ 6y ago
  You've heard of this pandemic thing going on though, right? Perhaps they should have not put an age restriction on.
  - donw 6y ago
    Credibility goes right out the window when you say "No large gatherings! Unless they're a protest/riot for a cause we support! Or a funeral for a late supreme court justice on our side." If you want people to follow rules, you have to be consistent in how those rules are applied.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think it's quite a bit more than a "perhaps". The order is clearly an attempt to target a politically disfavored age bracket; it would never occur to someone without specific animus against CU-Boulder students to write such a narrow rule.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases; a strategy of forcing young people inside, assuming it even worked, would increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity. But just as far as legal precedent, given this (evil) order is specifically in response to a spike in “cases” (they’re not cases they’re positive tests), it is more than justified under the reasoning used in Jacobson v Massachusetts. Unfortunately.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases; Yes, we should. > increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity. This assumes that herd immunity is reached without a vaccine; the whole idea of controlling the spread is to reduce the degree to which herd immunity depends on people getting infected.
aaomidi 6y ago
I wonder how much of this is because of protests.
tamaharbor 6y ago
Yahoo comments are disabled, so I will say this here: What a bunch of pussies. Contrary to popular belief, you will probably not die if you catch the virus.
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
It's pretty disgusting the amount of additional powers we're allowing the government to take during this pandemic. You might may something to the affect "desperate times call for desperate measures," but have no doubt, the next 'emergency' is right around the corner. Once you give government power, it's quite difficult to take it back. People will be toeing the lines for years on what an emergency is, until it simply becomes the norm.
- cbsks 6y ago
  What new powers are being granted to the government? The authority to order a quarantine is not new.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The authority to order quarantine for every member of a specific demographic group is... well, not exactly new, but the historical instances of it are pretty roundly condemned today. How would you feel if Boulder had selectively imposed this order on all unmarried people, or all Swedish people?
  - mieses 6y ago
    misapplying quarantine powers to indefinitely transform everyday life is a new thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opportunism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opportunism
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
luckyone 6y ago
Boulder has turned into the nazi town
luckyone 6y ago
This is government over reach. Every 18-25year old should protest it. Boulder is a totalitarian state
just-juan-post 6y ago
Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?
- JamilD 6y ago
  It's interesting how we can use age (selectively) as a discriminator, but within a certain range and in certain contexts, it's seen as "bad" to discriminate. Most wouldn't say the concept of a retirement age is discriminatory, nor the concept of age of consent or minimum age to purchase alcohol, or pricing insurance rates differently based on age. Somehow this application of age discrimination seems to cross the line for many people, though. I'm genuinely curious as to why.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    Old enough to choose to die for their country in the military but not old enough safely hang out with friends? Age limits make sense in some contexts but we need some consistency.
  - agency 6y ago
    Fun fact: In the US, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids employment discrimination based on age against people over 40. It’s legal to discriminate against young people based on age.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  It’s often legal to discriminate by age (that is literally what the drinking, driving, and smoking age limits are), but I believe that the government must have a compelling interest in the restriction. This one seems extremely shaky to me, but as is common it’s likely that a lot of people will end up paying fines since they can’t afford to fight an order that may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    The problem is while technically Jacobson v Massachusetts is supposed to declare unreasonable restrictions unconstitutional, in practice it has allowed forced vaccination, forced sterilization, and forced detention. Oops!
DeonPenny 6y ago
Those are the least likely people to actually listen to this. Lets see how this goes.
Animats 6y ago
One area of Indonesia put mask violators on grave-digging as punishment.[1] [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/21/fact-check-anti-maskers-indonesia-punished-gravedigging/5846435002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/21/fac...
- Dfol 6y ago
  What's the point though? There were 2 options. Pay the equivalent of $10 USD or dig graves. AKA make poor people dig graves. Plus, the article says it was only 8 people which won't have any actual impact. I can't imagine any rational person thinking this would be effective. "Oh, I'm digging a grave for someone who has lived 3x more than me." If that were successful nobody would smoke, drink, eat bad food.
zarkov99 6y ago
Hold enough to vote and go to war, but not gather. Doesn't make much sense.
mchusma 6y ago
This group which is at so little risk being targeted in such an aggressive way is horrifying. It's really scary to think that I'm the US, without legislative voting, a state can ban people from socializing. We need to strip all emergency powers now. These were meant for times like earthquakes, where legislatures don't have time to act. It's been 7 months now, that is no longer an excuse. I think a 30 day cap is generous enough.
- m463 6y ago
  They come home and bring it to grandma.
  - yadco 6y ago
    Maybe let grandma decide for herself
  - yanks215 6y ago
    Grandma can lock the door. So can nursing homes. What grandchild wants to hurt their grandparent anyway?
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    So can a 45 year old. Why selectively target this one group instead of banning all gatherings regardless of age?
m0zg 6y ago
Precisely the age range which is _not dying from COVID_. Like at all, almost. They should be prohibiting gatherings of those 50 and up, of any size, and offering free grocery deliveries and assistance to those 60 and up so that they don't have to get out of the house. Instead, we get idiotic crap like this.
Simulacra 6y ago
The measures being used seem to have less to do with public health and more to do with public control. Politicians hate to be challenged, and we don't challenge them nearly enough in America. Enough is enough. Open the schools, open the businesses, and let people govern their own behavior.
rgiscard 6y ago
COVID infections by by age in Boulder County: Age Number of Individuals in Boulder County * 0-9 66 10-19 1,261 20-29 1,364 30-39 340 40-49 335 50-59 318 60-69 189 70-79 144 80+ 111 Source: https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covid-19-illness-and-recovery/ https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covi...
- mieses 6y ago
  and probably less than a total of 5 deaths? why does the number of infections matter? a focus on the number of infections rather than suffering, illness or death implies a goal of slowing or preventing herd immunity and, by extension, prolonging Covid regulations.
  - rgiscard 6y ago
    Please run for the county health commissioner or CDC director if you feel this strongly about this.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Please run for the county health commissioner or CDC director if you feel this strongly about this. The lowest elected position in the CDC chain of command is the President of the United States.
      - mieses 6y ago
        to prevent cavities, dentists should pull out all your teeth. if you object to this obvious remedy then you are clearly an irrational person.
mieses 6y ago
Mass surveillance is inevitable unless there is a push back against this stuff. Covid will accomplish what Patriot Act, social media, and smartphones weren't able to.

108 points by mrfusion 6y ago

Great way to give a bunch of young adults a criminal records. Get that rap sheet established early.

The story posted here reports the implications of the ban on college sports, but this may be a more informative article on the ban in general: https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-order-halting-gatherings-for-college-aged-residents-coronavirus/amp/ https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues...

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

This is evil. This strategy, ignoring human rights for a second, increases the proportion of at-risk individuals who must get sick before herd immunity is reached. If you have a population of 100 people, and the HIT is 20% (assume homogenous mixing), of which half your population is high-risk and half is low-risk, you can enforce universal lockdown and end up with 10 high-risk and 10 low-risk infections, or you can encourage just the at-risk to isolate and end up with like 18 low-risk and 2 high-risk. It should be self evident which course is better. Unfortunately the world has been tricked into viewing “herd immunity” as a dirty word as opposed to an emergent phenomenom. Arbitrary and capricious regulations like this aren’t just ethically wrong, they’ee bad public health. Unfortunately the disastrous Jacobson v Massachusetts decision laid the groundwork for this stuff. The Jacobson decision was later used to justify forced sterilization of the mentally retarded, as just one example of where a collectivist, “for the greater good” mentality inevitably takes you.

microcolonel 6y ago
Jacobson v MA also formed the basis for Korematsu, the case that justified the suspension of Japanese Americans' human rights on the basis of their ethnicity. Jacobson and its descendant Buck, then Korematsu, are among the most shameful moments in the history of the law in America.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  I would love to see the decisions overturned. Maybe with a majority originalist/textualist SCOTUS there’s a chance. I’m not holding my breath though.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    I hope the President chooses Allison Jones Rushing or Barbara Lagoa, because Amy Coney Barrett has cited Jacobson favourably.
    - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
      I saw that too. I'm not sure how to feel about it. I know that lower courts are bound to uphold precedent via vertical stare decisis, but it sounds like even with the precedent as a given, she might have stretched it in a way she wasn't forced to. Do you have any thoughts here? ACB seems like the perfect candidate except for exactly what you mentioned. So I am very curious how much of that was her hands being tied versus her being unusually authoritarian. Because if it's the latter, I absolutely share your concern.
marcell 6y ago
One thing that amazes is me is how the individual rights objections to these orders get so little credit. People go into deep discussions of whether the cost/benefit makes sense (do you save sufficient lives with a measure to offset the cost of the restrictions). As you point out, this is collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place. There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  "collectivist, utilitarianist thinking, and it gets us to a bad place." You can't proclaim this as a universal principle. Modern civilisation requires a significant amount of collectivism. Think of the justice system. Back in 18th century England prisoners were charged for being in Jail and by judges to be judged - with massive corruption. Courts were not open to public. There was no police or detectives - they were seen as totalitarian and opressive. Arrests depended on hue and cry and violent criminals openly boasted of their deeds in pubs
- enjeyw 6y ago
  >There is a very simple reason why these restrictions are outrageous: individuals have a right to gather with their friends if they so choose. I agree that "being able to gather with your friends" is a great thing, but I don't see why it's a sacred right that is "outrageous" to restrict no matter the consequences. Like a lot of these debates, this sort of things comes down to your personal beliefs in the relative importances of: - "The right as an invididual to do X" - "The right as an individual to not be negatively affected by someone else doing X" Most actions all on the spectrum somewhere: "Society has decided it's acceptable for me to drive a car, even though it puts pedestrians at risk of being run over" "Society has decided that it's not acceptable for me to drive a car when intoxicated, even if's really inconvenient for me to get a taxi home, because the risk of me killing a pedistrian is too high" "Society isn't quite sure what the maximum speed that I can drive a car at on a surban street (and get to my destination faster, while increasing the risk of killing someone), but it's not 'as fast as I can go', and it's not '2 MPH'". Its the same with "the right to gather with friends, and in the process increase the chances that I'll get COVID and pass it on to someone who dies from it". Simply declaring it "outrageous" not to maintain that right is overly simplistic, and I think that actually, some form of utilitiarian thinking is very helpful. In short, you can't just reject utilitarian thinking just because your utility function is different to that of society's.
jtsiskin 6y ago
Does herd immunity work for COVID-19? I though we did not yet know whether infection leads to future immunity. Even better than 18 low-risk and 2 high risk is 2 low-risk and 2 high-risk. I think the intention here is to reduce infections until a vaccine comes out
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Good question. Ordinarily I would say that the fact that you're even asking is totally ridiculous, but the narrative has actually been spread that herd immunity is a myth for COVID-19 - which is false - so I absolutely understand your question. Unfortunately there are literally factions out there trying to convince people that this thing is impossible to build immunity to, which again is false. Have some studies: ["Neutralizing and binding antibody kinetics of COVID-19 patients during hospital and convalescent phases"](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.18.20156810v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.18.20156810v...) - Published July 18 2020 - Based on these half-life data, we estimate that the median times for IgM, IgA and IgG to become seronegative are 4.59 (IQR 4.12-5.03), 7.78 (IQR 6.71-9.16) and 42.72 (IQR 33.75-47.96) months post disease onset. - This study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust neutralizing and binding antibody responses in patients and that humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 acquired by infection may persist for a relatively long time. ["SARS-CoV-2 infection induces robust, neutralizing antibody responses that are stable for at least three months"](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126v...) - July 17, 2020 - Here we report that the vast majority of infected individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 experience robust IgG antibody responses against the viral spike protein, based on a dataset of 19,860 individuals screened at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City. - We also show that titers are stable for at least a period approximating three months, and that anti-spike binding titers significantly correlate with neutralization of authentic SARS-CoV-2. Our data suggests that more than 90% of seroconverters make detectible neutralizing antibody responses and that these titers are stable for at least the near-term future. -------- BTW, there's something called immunological memory, your memory B/T cells persist for decades. So even if you, say, were only fully immune to reinfection for 1 week, you could still get to herd immunity by building up enough immunological memory since the presence of memory B/T cells will reduce transmission. Anyway, fortunately COVID-19 produces immunity of several months at least.
bosswipe 6y ago
Are there any professional epidemiologists advocating for natural herd immunity as a goal? I'm not an expert but what I've seen is them saying the opposite. Here's one example https://www.islandpacket.com/news/coronavirus/article245833935.html https://www.islandpacket.com/news/coronavirus/article2458339...
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Yes there are, they’re just not elevated because the powers that be like the epidemiologists that justify authoritarianism. First of all, Anders Tegnell set Sweden’s policy and has been a brilliant voice of reason. Check out Michael Levitt, Martin Kuelhoff, Jay Bhattachargee. There’s a lot more but I’m on mobile and need to get back to my computer first to dig through my notes. Just be warned, if you actually research this issue - I’ve probably read 40 papers in the last 3 months, you might find it incredibly depressing, because it’s not even that we traded freedom for safety: we traded both away for nothing. Lockdown worsens COVID—19 mortality IMO, let alone the second order ramifications. Herd immunity is a natural emergent phenomenon and is how ALL infectious diseases stop being a threat. Just remember herd immunity does not mean eradication, it just means no more exponential spread. But tldr: - Learn about immunological memory - Learn about t cell cross reactivity: exposure to non-sars hcovs confers protection - learn the simplistic herd immunity formula based off of the basic reproduction number, then learn how to think about heterogenity which makes the true HIT lower than the simplistic 1-1/R_0 implies - learn that severe covid-19 kills vis pathological cytokine release syndrome and thus is an immunoregulatory disorder which logically would be worsened by lack of sunlight (vit d + nitric oxide), lack of sleep, lack of exercise, and excessive stress/fear, all results of lockdown - read research literature on cloth masks published before the covid mass delusion ever happened; they are unanimous in showing that cloth masks make things worse

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

djhaskin987 6y ago

A waste management map from my county (Utah County in Utah) reveals that the three waste management districts that were servicing the two universities in the area were absolutely the red hot spots for covid-19. The two University presidents wrote a letter jointly telling the college students if they did not shape up The universities would be closed. Our governor applauded the letter and I don't think he was wrong. I don't care what anyone says. An 18-year-old is an adult and they need to take that responsibility seriously.

nugget 6y ago
At what point does the responsibility shift to the University Presidents if they can predict with confidence (and then confirm with data) that their students will never comply with their directives?
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  >wrote a letter jointly telling the college students if they did not shape up The universities _would be closed_ I think from this we could infer that they will take responsibility when they think it becomes clearer that students will not sufficiently comply with the public safety directives.
  - Dfol 6y ago
    It just so happens that in your scenario the college makes more money by 'taking responsibility'.
- sonotathrowaway 6y ago
  My more cynical interpretation is that the school wanted to shift the onus onto the students, because more effective measures would have affected the schools ability to charge tuition at it’s full rate.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    I don't think it's cynical. there is no way schools reasonably and realistically thought they could control COVID in a university environment. If they did they were negligent. It's 100% about cashing the checks before the withdrawal period. Who wants to pay $40,000 for online classes. Young kids is completely different we aren't doing enough and there aren't a ton of other options but to open schools. But in person college for adults? not a necessity

trentnix 6y ago

...and this measure is based on what science?

eplanit 6y ago

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

DetroitThrow 6y ago
>The Boulder hospitals are full, or strained? Flattening the curve was about keeping the hospitals from being overrun. Putting the strictest measures on the segment of the population that is least likely to get ill seems questionable (testing positive does not necessarily mean one has symptoms). Granted, spread to more vulnerable populations must be minimized -- but I wonder about the real science behind this policy (if it's about science). Doing some quick Googling about the scientists at the head of US public policy on the subject: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-colleges-fauci-urges-schools-keep-students-campus-outbreaks-n1238997 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-19-colleges... The scientists seem to say 1) don't send students home and 2) contain them so they don't cause further outbreaks at universities. So the suggestion of ending youth public gatherings at a university seems in-line with the science.
- Cola 6y ago
  They aren't ending them, though. Just prohibiting them. It seems comically naive to expect that the population that faces virtually zero downside and has the greatest propensity for risky behavior would obey such an order.
  - ls612 6y ago
    If you expel or jail a few to make an example it would probably cow the rest. (In case anyone isn’t certain, I do not support this line of thinking. But since authoritarianism is fashionable nowadays I fully expect it to happen)

mherdeg 6y ago

Here's some more coverage: https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-ban-on-gatherings-for-college-aged-people-to-help-stop-coronavirus-spread-linked-to-cu/ https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/24/boulder-county-issues-ban-on-... Here's the text of the order: https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/public-health-order/ https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/publ... The text says in part: ""Gathering: more than one individual coming together or being physically near each other for any shared and common purpose, including socializing or participating in any activity together including but not limited to shopping, dining, or exercising. A gathering does not include employees of any business while performing work for that business or any classroom learning activity explicitly permitted by the University of Colorado. Members of the same household while in their shared household space (e.g. a dorm room) together are not considered a gathering."" They've excluded people at work, so I suppose this allows people in this age range to provide childcare for essential workers, work in health care or at grocery stores, etc.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago
> They've excluded people at work, so I suppose this allows people in this age range to provide childcare for essential workers, work in health care or at grocery stores, etc. How kind of our benevolent overlords. We can still partake in the economic machinery! Just none of that pesky “living your life” stuff. I’m surprised they haven’t banned laughter yet. It spreads SARS-CoV-2-laden respiratory droplets like nothing else.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Roseanne Barr and Tim Dillon did a podcast recently and there was a part I loved so much, “at this point anyone who can’t laugh - you gotta go.” You want to find the authoritarians among us? Find the people who are unable to laugh and make it known that no one else should.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Oh believe me, I have found the authoritarians. I did not realize how many of my friends would callously and unquestioningly swallow the narrative and obey. (Many of my closest friends see through the narrative, partially because I wouldn’t shut up about it once I started reading the research and really realized how big of a mistake we’d made as a society) It’s kind of like how everyone thinks that they would have opposed the Nazis because they grew up being taught that Nazis were bad. The truth is, this experiment in mass collective delusion has made it very clear which among us would have spoken out. The ones reporting their neighbors for having a gathering or not wearing a mask while watering their lawn would have happily helped participate in genocide. Don’t doubt it.

senthil_rajasek 6y ago

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

SamReidHughes 6y ago
Human rights are always dangerous.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
It’s a human rights issue regardless of the data, and your assertion that “the virus needs to be quashed” goes against reality. We’re not practicing containment in the US, therefore this virus WILL diffuse through the population. All we can choose is how many lives we want to destroy before we accept that reality. (By the way, even if we were practicing containment - which we’re not - it would still eventually spread. Look at New Zealand for an example of the folly of human hubris). They are undertaking this measure because of a spike in COVID “cases” (read: positive PCR test results). A spike in cases without a corresponding increase in deaths or hospitalizations should be a good thing, but we treat it the same as having an equivalent number of centenarians get sick. Completely absurd and it goes against everything we knew about public health before this mass global hysteria took root.
- senthil_rajasek 6y ago
  It is a public health issue. What about the rights of people that are vulnerable. Why would public policy risk fatality of the vulnerable population over restricted movement of a few targeted populace in an emergency. The reality is that compared to March New York city in September has quashed the virus, per data.
  - 6y ago

rdtwo 6y ago

Why not just gather in the neighboring city?

Balgair 6y ago
The old saying is that Boulder is seven square miles between the mountains and reality. You can buy passports on Pearl St. to get into Boulder. It's kinda it's own little world. The next town over is Louisville, which has pretty much nothing for a 18-22 year old to do. Or Longmonth, which also has pretty much nothing to do. Denver is ~30 min away depending on traffic. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boulder,+CO/@39.949631,-105.2541145,10.03z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x876b8d4e278dafd3:0xc8393b7ca01b8058!8m2!3d40.0149856!4d-105.2705456 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Boulder,+CO/@39.949631,-10...
- rdtwo 6y ago
  It’s true bolder is the Berkeley of Colorado
- peapicker 6y ago
  Louisville and Longmont, both in Boulder County, are also subject to this prohibition as is is a county-wide regulation.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Oh, thank you, my mistake!

the_benno 6y ago

As a 27-year-old CU PhD student and staff member, I just want to say that this is a welcome development. The university recklessly opened this fall without adequate security measures in place over the loud protests of faculty and staff, and (surprised_pikachu.jpg) now Boulder is facing a massive outbreak clearly attributable to campus' opening [1]. My friends, colleagues, and community are being directly endangered by CU's obfuscation of case data, refusal to provide comprehensive testing, and foot-dragging on promised safety measures. It's ridiculous that the city/county are being forced to mitigate the downstream effects of this doomed-from-the-beginning plan, but the "run it like a business" university administration is a lost cause. [1] https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covid-19-illness-and-recovery/ https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covi...

jb775 6y ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken....And the entire point of lockdowns was to not overwhelm the hospitals all at once. It's so frustrating watching Democrat leaders (Jill Hunsaker Ryan in this case) put plans into place that aren't backed by ACTUAL evidence, blame others when their plans end up not working, refuse to pivot upon receiving new information, refuse to acknowledge when previous data is found to be inaccurate....all while trampling on the constitutional rights of American citizens.
- atomi 6y ago
  > People seem to forget that the expected total death count from day 1 was, and still is, expected to be the same no matter what actions taken This is so wrong. One has to really wonder what motivates you. Mask wearing alone, a simple action, dramatically lowers predicted infection rates
  - lbeltrame 6y ago
    There is yet no evidence that explicitly ties the use of a face mask to lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A lot of the published evidence is either inconsistent, or indirect (measurement of droplets, but that doesn't take physical barriers like nose and mouth, or the viral load required to overcome the non adaptive immune system). In fact, it has been argued that non pharmacological interventions should be evaluated with better evidence [1]. A Danish clinical trial enrolling 3000 people will probably give some more concrete answers. OTOH, hand washing and distance are definitely useful to reduce spread. P.S. Feel free to state your disagreement explicitly instead of downvoting. [1] https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/08/28/margaret-mccartney-we-need-better-evidence-on-non-drug-interventions-for-covid-19/ https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/08/28/margaret-mccartney-we-n...

InTheArena 6y ago

I live in boulder. So the issue here is really that the university of Colorado has a number of students who are flagrantly ignoring masking rules. They also have a administration that opened the campus. Boulder is a very left leaning city, has a department of health that has decided to be extremely expansive with their mandate in boulder county. Churches and public schools are still closed. But there is a tricky issue in that the state constitution keeps bolder from regulating CU. The majority of cases in Colorado are now from CU. That’s why they’ve structured at the way they have, because they cannot regulate CU directly. So the question becomes is this a violation of the bill of rights? You’d have to be able to argue that the governments actions are designed to be punitive, rather than protective. As much as Boulder has consistently overstepped itself, I think this still meets that criteria. As a sidenote, for all of the politicking about red state versus blue state, it is definitely millennials and zoomer‘s that I see without masks. Doesn’t bode well for the future. Also Boulder and CU have had this war going on for quite a while independent of covid. It got to the point where the University even decided to purchase a quarry to get around Boulder restrictions.

slimed 6y ago
So the solution is to lock the kids alone in their dorms? What a nightmare. Forbidding human contact with anyone is the most extreme covid restriction I've ever heard of. A clear violation of human rights.
- InTheArena 6y ago
  The way the students were acting are putting other peoples lives at risk. It’s not straightforward.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'm just not sure what that has to do with it. If they're engaging in specific risky behavior, maybe it's justified to ban that risky behavior, but you can't just tell an entire age bracket they've been naughty and ground them for 2 weeks as punishment.

slaymaker1907 6y ago

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

MrStephenJ 6y ago
You've heard of this pandemic thing going on though, right? Perhaps they should have not put an age restriction on.
- donw 6y ago
  Credibility goes right out the window when you say "No large gatherings! Unless they're a protest/riot for a cause we support! Or a funeral for a late supreme court justice on our side." If you want people to follow rules, you have to be consistent in how those rules are applied.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I think it's quite a bit more than a "perhaps". The order is clearly an attempt to target a politically disfavored age bracket; it would never occur to someone without specific animus against CU-Boulder students to write such a narrow rule.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases; a strategy of forcing young people inside, assuming it even worked, would increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity. But just as far as legal precedent, given this (evil) order is specifically in response to a spike in “cases” (they’re not cases they’re positive tests), it is more than justified under the reasoning used in Jacobson v Massachusetts. Unfortunately.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > We shouldn’t be trying to prevent cases; Yes, we should. > increase mortality by requiring proportionally more at-risk people to get sick to reach herd immunity. This assumes that herd immunity is reached without a vaccine; the whole idea of controlling the spread is to reduce the degree to which herd immunity depends on people getting infected.

aaomidi 6y ago

I wonder how much of this is because of protests.

tamaharbor 6y ago

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

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago

It's pretty disgusting the amount of additional powers we're allowing the government to take during this pandemic. You might may something to the affect "desperate times call for desperate measures," but have no doubt, the next 'emergency' is right around the corner. Once you give government power, it's quite difficult to take it back. People will be toeing the lines for years on what an emergency is, until it simply becomes the norm.

cbsks 6y ago
What new powers are being granted to the government? The authority to order a quarantine is not new.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The authority to order quarantine for every member of a specific demographic group is... well, not exactly new, but the historical instances of it are pretty roundly condemned today. How would you feel if Boulder had selectively imposed this order on all unmarried people, or all Swedish people?
- mieses 6y ago
  misapplying quarantine powers to indefinitely transform everyday life is a new thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opportunism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opportunism

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

luckyone 6y ago

Boulder has turned into the nazi town

luckyone 6y ago

This is government over reach. Every 18-25year old should protest it. Boulder is a totalitarian state

just-juan-post 6y ago

Replace "18-22 year olds" with "blacks" or "Muslims" Is it still ethical? Legal? Effective?

JamilD 6y ago
It's interesting how we can use age (selectively) as a discriminator, but within a certain range and in certain contexts, it's seen as "bad" to discriminate. Most wouldn't say the concept of a retirement age is discriminatory, nor the concept of age of consent or minimum age to purchase alcohol, or pricing insurance rates differently based on age. Somehow this application of age discrimination seems to cross the line for many people, though. I'm genuinely curious as to why.
- aeternum 6y ago
  Old enough to choose to die for their country in the military but not old enough safely hang out with friends? Age limits make sense in some contexts but we need some consistency.
- agency 6y ago
  Fun fact: In the US, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids employment discrimination based on age against people over 40. It’s legal to discriminate against young people based on age.
ashtonkem 6y ago
It’s often legal to discriminate by age (that is literally what the drinking, driving, and smoking age limits are), but I believe that the government must have a compelling interest in the restriction. This one seems extremely shaky to me, but as is common it’s likely that a lot of people will end up paying fines since they can’t afford to fight an order that may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  The problem is while technically Jacobson v Massachusetts is supposed to declare unreasonable restrictions unconstitutional, in practice it has allowed forced vaccination, forced sterilization, and forced detention. Oops!

DeonPenny 6y ago

Those are the least likely people to actually listen to this. Lets see how this goes.

Animats 6y ago

One area of Indonesia put mask violators on grave-digging as punishment.[1] [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/21/fact-check-anti-maskers-indonesia-punished-gravedigging/5846435002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/21/fac...

Dfol 6y ago
What's the point though? There were 2 options. Pay the equivalent of $10 USD or dig graves. AKA make poor people dig graves. Plus, the article says it was only 8 people which won't have any actual impact. I can't imagine any rational person thinking this would be effective. "Oh, I'm digging a grave for someone who has lived 3x more than me." If that were successful nobody would smoke, drink, eat bad food.

zarkov99 6y ago

Hold enough to vote and go to war, but not gather. Doesn't make much sense.

mchusma 6y ago

This group which is at so little risk being targeted in such an aggressive way is horrifying. It's really scary to think that I'm the US, without legislative voting, a state can ban people from socializing. We need to strip all emergency powers now. These were meant for times like earthquakes, where legislatures don't have time to act. It's been 7 months now, that is no longer an excuse. I think a 30 day cap is generous enough.

m463 6y ago
They come home and bring it to grandma.
- yadco 6y ago
  Maybe let grandma decide for herself
- yanks215 6y ago
  Grandma can lock the door. So can nursing homes. What grandchild wants to hurt their grandparent anyway?
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  So can a 45 year old. Why selectively target this one group instead of banning all gatherings regardless of age?

m0zg 6y ago

Precisely the age range which is _not dying from COVID_. Like at all, almost. They should be prohibiting gatherings of those 50 and up, of any size, and offering free grocery deliveries and assistance to those 60 and up so that they don't have to get out of the house. Instead, we get idiotic crap like this.

Simulacra 6y ago

The measures being used seem to have less to do with public health and more to do with public control. Politicians hate to be challenged, and we don't challenge them nearly enough in America. Enough is enough. Open the schools, open the businesses, and let people govern their own behavior.

rgiscard 6y ago

COVID infections by by age in Boulder County: Age Number of Individuals in Boulder County * 0-9 66 10-19 1,261 20-29 1,364 30-39 340 40-49 335 50-59 318 60-69 189 70-79 144 80+ 111 Source: https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covid-19-illness-and-recovery/ https://www.bouldercounty.org/families/disease/covid-19/covi...

mieses 6y ago
and probably less than a total of 5 deaths? why does the number of infections matter? a focus on the number of infections rather than suffering, illness or death implies a goal of slowing or preventing herd immunity and, by extension, prolonging Covid regulations.
- rgiscard 6y ago
  Please run for the county health commissioner or CDC director if you feel this strongly about this.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Please run for the county health commissioner or CDC director if you feel this strongly about this. The lowest elected position in the CDC chain of command is the President of the United States.
    - mieses 6y ago
      to prevent cavities, dentists should pull out all your teeth. if you object to this obvious remedy then you are clearly an irrational person.

mieses 6y ago

Mass surveillance is inevitable unless there is a push back against this stuff. Covid will accomplish what Patriot Act, social media, and smartphones weren't able to.