Boulder bans gatherings of any kind for people 18-22

[It’s so Joever]

My point is that it’s no coincidence that the one country that keeps screaming "I have a god-given right to attend church and infect my 75 year-old neighbor if I choose because this is America damn it" happens to be the country hardest hit by the virus.  Add it to the long list of reasons why the rest of the world cycles between laughing at us and weeping for us.

I don't agree that we are the country hardest hit by the virus. Death rates are higher across much of Latin America, for instance, and the consequences for people living in poorer countries have in general been much worse. Nor is the age-adjusted case fatality rate in the United States particularly bad compared to other rich countries.

I mean, the US still are a very good challenger for "Top 10 worst response to/worst outcome of COVID".

If we go by deaths for example, the top 10 goes as follows (excluding microstates):

1) Peru
2) Belgium
3) Spain (ha! Take that! )
4) Bolivia
5) Brazil
6) Chile
7) Ecuador
8 ) USA
9) Mexico
10) UK

This...is not a good way to measure which countries have had the “best” response due to discrepancies in reporting, in definitions, and in contexts.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Bottom line, this just isn't needed to stop the spread of Covid. Masks are everything we need. It's just overkill.

Want to hang out in a big group? Fine--provided you all wear masks.
Want to fly on a plane? Fine--provided you all wear masks.
Want to go to a museum? Fine--provided you all wear masks.
Want to attend in-person classes? Fine--provided you all wear masks.

We don't need anything else but near-perfect mask adherence to beat this virus. If we enforce that as aggressively as possible then we can have the rest of our lives back.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

jimrtex pointed this out but this was a ~two week old decision that was recently scaled back to something like 6-10 people in public gatherings

Regardless, it is and always was a horrible idea but people in this thread are misunderstanding why.

For context, Colorado public universities (and most public services) receive scarce public funding due to a constitutional amendment making it absurdly difficult to raise revenue. CO hovers around the 40-45th best state for investment in public schools. To remain competitive among a lot of its upscale in state students, it needs to bring in a disproportionate number of upper middle class out of state students (paying out of state tuition), primarily to Boulder. Of course part of the draw for these students (and why they can attract wealthy students) who can shell out is amenities and lifestyle associated with living in Boulder and the Front Range.

So, to preserve the only viable source of funding (especially once it became obvious mid-summer that there wasn't going to be another round of higher ed stimulus in time for the new semester) the university system faced the decision of either moving online and losing a lot of tuition revenue (and housing and other fees) or setting up a massive testing infrastructure. I work with several people at the university and, to a person, they all say they did not want the university to hold in-person classes. They didn't even know anyone who wanted in-person classes.

Through a mix of egregious incompetence (the CU system recently installed a new President, an ex-congressman who got wiped out in the 2006 blue wave) and budget shortfalls, the university system the barest of mitigation strategies in place. This included, but was not limited to, not establishing an official protocol for informing students or faculty when their classmates were sick, not closing dining halls, and only testing students living on campus. The Denver Post has reported on this for those who are interested. Needless to say, within a couple of weeks CU Boulder reached exponential growth among students and campus workers.

No doubt the City of Boulder also wanted students on campus despite the fact that there was a vocal community of people, not affiliated with the university, who thought students would not follow directions and become a reservoir for the virus.

The University and city's public health offices teamed up to order this incredibly bizarre directive when, after four months, infections were rampant among students and were starting to filter into the Boulder community (including elsewhere in Boulder County and in Broomfield). In addition to being nearly impossible to enforce in a non-creepy (apparently they were parking cop cars in areas of town with high student density) or holistic (it ignores non-traditional students and campus workers who interact with students) way and by unnecessarily punishing 18-22 year olds who are not part of the school system, the true outrage here is that this is a pure ass-covering move.

Rather than admit that they botched (or failed to ever take remotely seriously) mitigation efforts and that they put the greater Boulder metro area (which includes people who live in Denver) at risk by introducing a new reservoir of viral hosts, the university tried shifting blame onto students for doing exactly what the college experience in Boulder was marketed to them as. If you are a college administrator and you can not anticipate that students will want to be social and live a typical college experience, you shouldn't be a college administrator. Expecting students to pay full tuition to live far from home while sitting in their dorms/apartments and doing nothing but work, unable to go outside without being accosted by police is very much a late stage-capitalist perversion.

Don't be mad that the university ordered lockdowns. Be upset that the university administration decided to open in person in a bait-and-switch move, then didn't coordinate a proper strategy for doing this safely, leaving the work to lower-level staff and ultimately putting students and community members at risk. It's a great example of how decades-old austerity policies produced funding shortfalls incentivizing insanely risky behavior.

Two comments in this thread that are very strange to me. (1) I'm not sure why mob rule is being invoked here as if the lockdown was rolled back due to unhappy students. Boulder is full of hyper-engaged residents and hyper-unenganged students. The 18-22 year old constituency has no power, as with most college towns. (2) I also don't know why the Iraq War is being invoked at all. The Iraq War invasion was a choice between a bloodlust campaign and nothing; COVID lockdowns are choices that pit potential economic loss against serious public health risk. If the insinuation is that COVID lockdowns are being sold to the American public in deceit in similar fashion to Colin Powell shilling for the war before the UN, this is a very cynical read that's insensitive to the fact that we're facing a crisis that will hit a quarter-million recorded deaths by year's end.

[T'Chenka]

Like the Iraq War, in a few years from now everyone (including those now in favour of the toughest restrictions) will claim that they were against most or all of the authoritarian response from the outset.

And, contradictory as this may seem, like the era of the Iraq War many of the measures introduced recently might well still be around in many years from now. Not because anyone thinks that they are of any use, but because no one in government will have the guts to speak out for their repeal as they know it will be them who will get the blame once the next pandemic rolls around.

No.

The 9/11 and Iraq era authoritarianism was giving government powers they could easily manipulate to fight hypothetical threats as they arose. COVID is a REAL and present deadly threat in EVERY community that the government locks down. This isn't a hypothetical about how "we don't know where the virus (terrorist) is so we habe to be authoritarian to find it before it can kill somebody". We know where the virus is and we know that it definitely "intends" to kill Americans.

This isn't the same thing. Pandemics and domestic terrorism are apples and oranges.

[Beet]

Like the Iraq War, in a few years from now everyone (including those now in favour of the toughest restrictions) will claim that they were against most or all of the authoritarian response from the outset.

Completely agree with this.

Anyone who remains tempted to say things like "the pandemic doesn't care about the US Constitution" should reflect on those who were expressing similar opinions with regard to terrorism fifteen years ago.

The nature of the US Constitution is to protect certain rights even when doing so is unpopular, and the past six months have demonstrated that the document, whatever its flaws, has aged better in over two hundred years than the opinions of those who are most critical of it now are likely to over the next ten.

In truth, the best evidence is that respect for individual choice has not caused particular harm in the United States. The relatively high death toll here has more to do with our high rate of obesity and other comorbidities, as well as the failures of our so-called "health care system."

There have been policy failures as a result of fractured decision-making and poor leadership from the Trump administration, but these are secondary. In truth, the response here has not been uniquely bad. By the numbers, the US isn't really an outlier, and even the most draconian and centralized measures have failed to contain the virus in other countries.

I invite anyone who fantasizes about keeping the country under indefinite house arrest to have themselves locked in a padded room under the care of competent adults, where they will be maximally safe. For my own part, I will continue to live.

It really has. In deaths/million population, we rank 10th in the world, and among large developed countries we are 2nd only to Spain. In cases/million population among developed countries, it's even more stark. (Sweden at 14 is also quite a bit higher than Denmark, Norway or Finland).

Draconian measures really have contained the virus, if you look at countries like Italy, or cities like New York City, where new infection levels dropped by something like 95%. What it didn't do was completely stamp it out to a level where it wouldn't come back. Further, localized successful measures can only work if the virus is eliminated in other areas so it isn't re-introduced into the region, and depending on the amount of travel, that condition isn't met.

None of that is to say we should be kept under "indefinite house arrest". You either crush the virus at the outset, and crush it completely, or near enough completely that it can be closely monitored or controlled, or you live with it.* As we have collectively decided the latter, which is a perfectly valid choice, we may as well be happy with it.

*What the restrictions that have been implemented have accomplished so far is exactly what they were said to do, which is to flatten the curve.

[Fight for Trump]

so like when me and my wife were 22 and got married would we not have been allowed to live together lmao

big gov can go f!ck themselves. it makes me so mad.

I would rather the big gov. f**ks me. I want to be treaded on so badly.

bruh.

altho if marriage is a valid exception to this, I recommend all the 18-22 year olds of Boulder to get in a big ass polyamorous marriage so that they can do whatever.

Boulder is in Colorado, not Utah.

[Ljube]

This is unconstitutional. This creates second grade citizens.

[Fight for Trump]

This is unconstitutional. This creates second grade citizens.

I hope 18-22-year-olds are not still in second grade.

[Ljube]

This is unconstitutional. This creates second grade citizens.

I hope 18-22-year-olds are not still in second grade.

LOL!

OK, second-class citizens.

[Del Tachi]

If institutions are not going to exert their authority for the public good during emergency situations out of fear of retaliation, that sets a precedent that the mob can overturn anything with enough outrage.

ding ding ding ding ding

"I'll take 'Tenets of Democratic Governance' for $400, Alex"

So you believe we should be a pure Democracy with no checks and balances to prevent mob tyranny?
Got it.

I believe that government authorities should have to live in constant fear of being overthrown by the popular masses, yes.  A healthy democracy channels these energies through the ballot box, but the fundamental principle is the same as mob rule. 

...that’s a lot different than authorities being afraid to pass basic safety measures simply because they are worried criminals/murderers will breach them.

...no it really isn't.  It just becomes a question of degree - what is a "basic safety" measure to some may be tyrannical oppression to others, so the issue is fundamentally debatable.  This much should be plainly obvious to anyone, since we all would have balked at the idea of college kids not being allowed to gather in groups of any size as little as, hmm, 10 months ago!? 

Talking to you reminds me what it was like to be 17/18 years old.  It's cute how ideologically absolute youth allows one to be.  There's still a lot you have left to experience/learn, so the world looks very black and white to you.  Everything from here on out in your life will just add extra layers of complexity and nuance, and the "black and white" will all meld to grey.       

[It’s so Joever]

If institutions are not going to exert their authority for the public good during emergency situations out of fear of retaliation, that sets a precedent that the mob can overturn anything with enough outrage.

ding ding ding ding ding

"I'll take 'Tenets of Democratic Governance' for $400, Alex"

So you believe we should be a pure Democracy with no checks and balances to prevent mob tyranny?
Got it.

I believe that government authorities should have to live in constant fear of being overthrown by the popular masses, yes.  A healthy democracy channels these energies through the ballot box, but the fundamental principle is the same as mob rule. 

...that’s a lot different than authorities being afraid to pass basic safety measures simply because they are worried criminals/murderers will breach them.

...no it really isn't.  It just becomes a question of degree - what is a "basic safety" measure to some may be tyrannical oppression to others, so the issue is fundamentally debatable.  This much should be plainly obvious to anyone, since we all would have balked at the idea of college kids not being allowed to gather in groups of any size as little as, hmm, 10 months ago!? 

Talking to you reminds me what it was like to be 17/18 years old.  It's cute how ideologically absolute youth allows one to be.  There's still a lot you have left to experience/learn, so the world looks very black and white to you.  Everything from here on out in your life will just add extra layers of complexity and nuance, and the "black and white" will all meld to grey.       

...I actually agree.
I am very young and I still have a lot to experience. Whether my views do change significantly or not remains to be seen, but I’m not discounting it.
And yes you are technically correct, this is a question of where to draw the line.
However I still maintain that authorities not passing measures out of fear of people breaching them is a lot different than authorities not passing measures out of worry of voter retribution. Those are two fundamentally different motivations and are not equivalent in any way.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

The terrorists were real too and thousands of Americans died by their hands. Moreover, we were fortunate that additional plots were either disrupted or prevented outright. No one knew that there wouldn't be another attack of the same scale and few would have predicted so at the time.

Neither of you are representing the comparison in good faith. It's not about whether the threat is real or not, it's about what people can reasonably be asked to give up for the sake of combating it.

Not every disagreement boils down to bad faith. I am very disappointed that you are choosing to interpret the post this way.

The comparison falls flat because, in the case of COVID, sacrifices are made with either choice. It's a choice between individual freedom and public safety; public is a key word here because less mitigation necessarily increases risk of transmission to other people. Campus workers and community members (even in Denver!) have been infected because of poor planning on the part of a public institution that serves as the lifeblood of the city.

There was no corresponding risk in inactivity with the Iraq War. Any narrative to the contrary was essentially propaganda, which is why I find the comparison insidious. The threats you are citing weren't tied to the Hussein regime in any way.

Colleges and college towns have gone way too far in monitoring, confining, and penalizing their students.

The Boulder shutdown was wrong in nearly every aspect, from design to timing to intended purpose to enforcement. The university here is at fault because of their incredible ineptitude in planning (and the disgusting practice of baiting in students and holding them in person for just long enough to cash their tuition checks before delivering a sub-standard product entirely online under the full tuition price). The city response is shameful for trying to shame and blame students in the guise of "public interest" when their planning in conjunction with the university clearly put members of the public at risk for the first month of the semester.

Punishing and shaming students for doing exactly what is marketed to them when they are recruited through advertisements, mailers, and recruitment events (not to mention a decade-plus of societal attitudes and cultural norms around college) is harmful. Opening the universities more or less under a "business as usual but with some masks" model was always doomed to fail.

This does not preclude all mitigation strategies. Banning outdoor gatherings is ineffective and does more harm than good. There are other strategies, however, which are much more effective.

They can only get away with it because debt and poor economic prospects have rendered those students powerless to resist or demand that they be treated like adults with rights.

I am assuming you have never been to Boulder.

Even more generally, I am not sure why debt is being invoked here when talking about 18-22 year olds who haven't even started their payments yet. The much better explanation is that universities hold power over their students (1) through ungodly administrative and bureaucratic bloat that insulates decision makers from student input and (2) because of profit motives caused simultaneously by a class of administrators who want to run the university like a business while operating under scarce assistance from state governments.

[darklordoftech]

Why are gatherings of 17-year-olds or of 23-year-olds ok?