News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by kelnos on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @03:43PM (#22549687)
If city officials didn't want 999-person events, they should have set the number lower.

At the end of the day you have to set the threshold somewhere. One could argue that a 500-person event is still risky, but a balance has to be struck between attempting to slow the spread of the disease, and not unreasonably restricting people's activities.

In this case, what's reasonable is certainly up for debate. No measure will be perfect, unless we want to start advocating for no gatherings whatsoever (public or private) and effectively putting people under house arrest. While that would stop transmission of the disease, I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that would be an overreaction. But certainly it's up for debate as to, say, whether a 100-person ban would be appropriate, vs. 1,000, 10,000, etc. They chose 1,000. It won't be a perfect number, but it will help.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by cactus2093 on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:07PM (#22550627)
Jesus, what are you looking at that makes you so sure of this viewpoint?

I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that we absolutely do need a quarantine that keeps almost everyone in their homes, except for those providing critical services (medical staff, police, national guard, plus some needed amount of infrastructure for groceries, pharmacies, electricity, water, etc.). For the next 2 or 3 months, I fully expect to only leave home maybe every few days or week to go to the grocery store or pharmacy, like you see today in most of South Korea. It's just a question of when at this point, and the sooner we start it, the less disruptive it'll be in the long term and the fewer people will die.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by kelnos on Sunday March 22, 2020 @05:17PM (#22658750)
It's funny to look at this retrospectively 11 days later, after both the bay area and CA as a whole has been subject to a shelter-in-place order.

So you're right, of course.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by wrkronmiller on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:16PM (#22550001)
That assumes the 999 person events will actually enforce the limit and not let the thousandth attendee in.

It also ignores the intention of the rule, which is to reduce unnecessary risk. If 1001 people in a single venue is dangerous, so is 999.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by logfromblammo on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:21PM (#22550057)
Determining the exact number seems like interesting math.

I imagine a function using things like transmission vector diffusion rate, windspeed, incubation period, critical care percentage, number of ICU beds, and such as parameters, and outputs the maximum allowable gathering size that will keep the spread slow enough that everyone who requires hospital recovery can get admitted. Public officials could then ban public gatherings greater than 80% of that number.

Seems like a paper describing it could be worth some academia brownie points.

Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by handedness on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:20PM (#22550051)
That officials at a certain level allow something does not absolve organizers of their moral duties, either.
Re:San Francisco bans public events holding more than 1,000 ... by PeterStuer on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @04:26PM (#22550099)
If you try to live by the letter rather than the spirit of rules in soiciety, that is how you get Martin Shkreli aka "Pharma Bro".