8 ms·

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 ade

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...
    - 8note 6y ago
      Is there clinical evidence for handwashing and distancing is effective? Study with a nice chart saying the benefit for each additional foot?
      - sieabahlpark 6y ago
        Did handwashing stop being effective for washing anything off your hands? Sure you could be pedantic and mention some caustic material that reacts with water but that misses the point.
    - zorak 6y ago
      Great explanation of the issues here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7 https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7
      - lbeltrame 6y ago
        I'm not saying that masks don't work. But whether they are effective at reducing transmission and, if so, in what measure are open questions. The literature is at this point inconclusive[1]. Even the latest Lancet paper on masks and distancing attracted some criticism[2]. Of course,I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, as the BMJ post I quoted earlier says, instead of just saying "wear a mask", the best idea would also promote trials to verify their effectiveness (like the Danish trial). It's done all the time for drugs, why not masks? [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... [2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5E54 https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5...
- camel_Snake 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... Could you provide some sort of source for this? This seems completely illogical as our goal has never been heard immunity.
  - kjeetgill 6y ago
    Not to take sides, but that was the basis of the whole flatten the curve thing — or how it was presented to most people atleast.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      The basis for it was reducing impact on health care systems, and to limit second, and future wave impact. Doing the first saved a lot of people because treatment was available. Secondary saves were non covid patients who could get service because capacity remained more available. Had we had better safety compliance, we would have reduced even more than we did and may have normalized things such that the wave upon us now would be much less. Death rates are dead/recovered and that is driven by infections. Lower infections means fewer entering the death equation. More health care available means more recovered and all of that means far fewer dead people.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        It actually didn't save anyone because there was never any risk of hospital overload when panic didn't set in: Sweden has one of the lowest ICU capacities in Europe and never saw hospital overload. A few places did, but that's because they over-reacted and quarantined lots of their medical staff. That's the reaction not the virus.
        pvaldes 6y ago
        It does not matter so much if you die in the hospital or in your home, in the end you are still dead. Deterring people to go to the hospitals, that are destined to save lifes, so they die at home instead, is not brilliant advice. They can (and will) sell it as a success, but Swedden still had much more people killed than their twin country Norway. The fact that those hospital rooms where not occupied despite having some elders in need of specialized care, is a failure, not a success. > was never any risk of hospital overload I think that many physicians in the planet would tell a very different history.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eesmith 6y ago
  "expected to be the same" is simply not true. Even simple models like the one described at https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 (I point to the relevant part) shows that reducing the infection rate can also lead to fewer overall deaths.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    UCSF's grand rounds last week discussed the observation that when there are outbreaks it appears that without masks the asymptomatic rate is 40% of those infected. With masks it appears to be 85%. Or to flip it around without masks 60% have symptoms. With masks only 15% do.
    - throwmeaway_pls 6y ago
      Okay, okay, I’m as down with the science as anybody but those numbers sound a lot like cherry-picking. They also don’t jive with the info that’s trickled out suggesting that a plurality of infections are happening in the home, at restaurants, or while attending unmasked gatherings.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  This makes more sense with the premise that curtailing citizen's rights and greater central planning has always been appealing to some. Evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns or lack thereof is incidental. "Climate Lockdowns" are already being proposed. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/09/23/commentary/world-commentary/climate-change-lockdown/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/09/23/commentary/w... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-real...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 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.... Only if you assume we'll never have vaccine or efficient specific treatment, which is most likely false assumption. In all other cases expected total death toll can vary by order of magnitude or more depending on how many people get infected before vaccine and/or treatments are widely available.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  You're going to get downvotes like crazy from the Corona Cult. Be sure to Vote in November.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 6y ago
The constant surprised_pikachu.jpg is what really gets me. We know what happens when you re-open businesses. More people get sick. It's totally predictable! Yet the media breathlessly reports how shocked everyone is at the "surge" or "second wave" every time a region tries to re-open. And, regions keep trying it! "We're going to carefully re-open bars and nail salons and see what happens..." says the government. Without mask use and social distancing, it is totally predictable what is going to happen, morons! [For some unknown reason, HN doesn't let me post any more today, so replying as an edit] Excellent point about having exit criteria. Just to pick a state at random, Pennsylvania [1] explains their criteria pretty well. They're looking for less than 50 new confirmed cases per 100,000 population reported in the previous 14 days. Which seems way too many to me, but what do I know, I'm not an epidemiologist. These criteria need to be open to change if they're wrong, though. If they notice cases increasing after re-opening, they need to 1. close back down, and 2. adjust their criteria downward so not to make the same mistake again. 1: https://www.governor.pa.gov/process-to-reopen-pennsylvania/ https://www.governor.pa.gov/process-to-reopen-pennsylvania/
- nradov 6y ago
  How long are you expecting businesses to remain closed? What are the exit criteria? How many people are being infected in nail salons?
nradov 6y ago
Collective punishment based on age can never be morally justified regardless of the results.
- dgudkov 6y ago
  You can view it not as punishment but as a restriction caused by inability to adequately estimate risks. Similar to prohibiting teenagers and kids from driving cars.
  - nradov 6y ago
    These are adults, not children. Quarantine measures applied to adults based on age are unprecedented and unjustified.
    - dgudkov 6y ago
      From a legal standpoint, not exactly. For instance, people in the US are prohibited from buying alcohol until 21yo. Do you consider that restriction also unprecedented and unjustified? :)
      - nradov 6y ago
        You've chosen a worthless example. The 21st Amendment gives states the authority to restrict alcohol sales. It is explicitly carved out as a legal exception and thus legally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
        DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Why is it worthless and why does the 21st amendment matter? The 9th amendment specifically allows states to legally preside over things that the federal government is not, so these laws are directly comparable other than that the 21st amendment in this case just specifically forbids the federal government from overriding the states decisions using the commerce clause. There is clearly legal precedent to age discrimination/restrictions in the United States, from age related employment discrimination protections not applying to those under the age of 40, to the legal age of alcohol and recreational marijuana consumption (the latter of which is not somehow "exempted" by the 21st amendments restriction of the federal government).

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...
  - 8note 6y ago
    Is there clinical evidence for handwashing and distancing is effective? Study with a nice chart saying the benefit for each additional foot?
    - sieabahlpark 6y ago
      Did handwashing stop being effective for washing anything off your hands? Sure you could be pedantic and mention some caustic material that reacts with water but that misses the point.
  - zorak 6y ago
    Great explanation of the issues here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7 https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks-masquerade-7de897b517b7
    - lbeltrame 6y ago
      I'm not saying that masks don't work. But whether they are effective at reducing transmission and, if so, in what measure are open questions. The literature is at this point inconclusive[1]. Even the latest Lancet paper on masks and distancing attracted some criticism[2]. Of course,I agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, as the BMJ post I quoted earlier says, instead of just saying "wear a mask", the best idea would also promote trials to verify their effectiveness (like the Danish trial). It's done all the time for drugs, why not masks? [1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... [2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5E54 https://pubpeer.com/publications/6AF113CE946CABB0FBB811697E5...
camel_Snake 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... Could you provide some sort of source for this? This seems completely illogical as our goal has never been heard immunity.
- kjeetgill 6y ago
  Not to take sides, but that was the basis of the whole flatten the curve thing — or how it was presented to most people atleast.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    The basis for it was reducing impact on health care systems, and to limit second, and future wave impact. Doing the first saved a lot of people because treatment was available. Secondary saves were non covid patients who could get service because capacity remained more available. Had we had better safety compliance, we would have reduced even more than we did and may have normalized things such that the wave upon us now would be much less. Death rates are dead/recovered and that is driven by infections. Lower infections means fewer entering the death equation. More health care available means more recovered and all of that means far fewer dead people.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      It actually didn't save anyone because there was never any risk of hospital overload when panic didn't set in: Sweden has one of the lowest ICU capacities in Europe and never saw hospital overload. A few places did, but that's because they over-reacted and quarantined lots of their medical staff. That's the reaction not the virus.
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        It does not matter so much if you die in the hospital or in your home, in the end you are still dead. Deterring people to go to the hospitals, that are destined to save lifes, so they die at home instead, is not brilliant advice. They can (and will) sell it as a success, but Swedden still had much more people killed than their twin country Norway. The fact that those hospital rooms where not occupied despite having some elders in need of specialized care, is a failure, not a success. > was never any risk of hospital overload I think that many physicians in the planet would tell a very different history.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eesmith 6y ago
"expected to be the same" is simply not true. Even simple models like the one described at https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 https://youtu.be/k6nLfCbAzgo?t=920 (I point to the relevant part) shows that reducing the infection rate can also lead to fewer overall deaths.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  UCSF's grand rounds last week discussed the observation that when there are outbreaks it appears that without masks the asymptomatic rate is 40% of those infected. With masks it appears to be 85%. Or to flip it around without masks 60% have symptoms. With masks only 15% do.
  - throwmeaway_pls 6y ago
    Okay, okay, I’m as down with the science as anybody but those numbers sound a lot like cherry-picking. They also don’t jive with the info that’s trickled out suggesting that a plurality of infections are happening in the home, at restaurants, or while attending unmasked gatherings.
aww_dang 6y ago
This makes more sense with the premise that curtailing citizen's rights and greater central planning has always been appealing to some. Evidence for the effectiveness of lockdowns or lack thereof is incidental. "Climate Lockdowns" are already being proposed. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/09/23/commentary/world-commentary/climate-change-lockdown/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/09/23/commentary/w... https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-real...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
scotty79 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.... Only if you assume we'll never have vaccine or efficient specific treatment, which is most likely false assumption. In all other cases expected total death toll can vary by order of magnitude or more depending on how many people get infected before vaccine and/or treatments are widely available.
nickthemagicman 6y ago
You're going to get downvotes like crazy from the Corona Cult. Be sure to Vote in November.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 6y ago

The constant surprised_pikachu.jpg is what really gets me. We know what happens when you re-open businesses. More people get sick. It's totally predictable! Yet the media breathlessly reports how shocked everyone is at the "surge" or "second wave" every time a region tries to re-open. And, regions keep trying it! "We're going to carefully re-open bars and nail salons and see what happens..." says the government. Without mask use and social distancing, it is totally predictable what is going to happen, morons! [For some unknown reason, HN doesn't let me post any more today, so replying as an edit] Excellent point about having exit criteria. Just to pick a state at random, Pennsylvania [1] explains their criteria pretty well. They're looking for less than 50 new confirmed cases per 100,000 population reported in the previous 14 days. Which seems way too many to me, but what do I know, I'm not an epidemiologist. These criteria need to be open to change if they're wrong, though. If they notice cases increasing after re-opening, they need to 1. close back down, and 2. adjust their criteria downward so not to make the same mistake again. 1: https://www.governor.pa.gov/process-to-reopen-pennsylvania/ https://www.governor.pa.gov/process-to-reopen-pennsylvania/

nradov 6y ago
How long are you expecting businesses to remain closed? What are the exit criteria? How many people are being infected in nail salons?

nradov 6y ago

Collective punishment based on age can never be morally justified regardless of the results.

dgudkov 6y ago
You can view it not as punishment but as a restriction caused by inability to adequately estimate risks. Similar to prohibiting teenagers and kids from driving cars.
- nradov 6y ago
  These are adults, not children. Quarantine measures applied to adults based on age are unprecedented and unjustified.
  - dgudkov 6y ago
    From a legal standpoint, not exactly. For instance, people in the US are prohibited from buying alcohol until 21yo. Do you consider that restriction also unprecedented and unjustified? :)
    - nradov 6y ago
      You've chosen a worthless example. The 21st Amendment gives states the authority to restrict alcohol sales. It is explicitly carved out as a legal exception and thus legally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
      - DetroitThrow 6y ago
        Why is it worthless and why does the 21st amendment matter? The 9th amendment specifically allows states to legally preside over things that the federal government is not, so these laws are directly comparable other than that the 21st amendment in this case just specifically forbids the federal government from overriding the states decisions using the commerce clause. There is clearly legal precedent to age discrimination/restrictions in the United States, from age related employment discrimination protections not applying to those under the age of 40, to the legal age of alcohol and recreational marijuana consumption (the latter of which is not somehow "exempted" by the 21st amendments restriction of the federal government).