Will the police be asking people for proof of age ID? The 18-30 age bracket is quite hard to discern from appearance alone aside from late blooming guys . How will they fillter out a baby faced 30 year old ?
[quote=“msdynamite85, post:16751, topic:2088334”]
(Ugh, apologies. Today I keep failing at properly quoting prior posts. Sorry. Below is my addition:)
This is one of the things that I find just fascinating. There is a lot of seemingly puritanical judgment related to people who appear to be having fun, regardless of whether it has any effect on covid risk. Why are the cans of beer even relevant? Fine to be concerned about a group of kids age 18-22 going to the beach if kids 18-22 aren’t allowed to gather, but whether they are drinking lemonade or beer does not make covid more or less likely to spread. I have similarly read articles about kids gathering in the evening, outdoors, more than 6 feet apart, having a White Claw (spiked seltzer) and listening to loud music. This seemed to upset some of the more uptight people. What fascinated me is that loud music does not cause covid to spread. White Claw does not cause covid to spread. These details are 100% irrelevant to the story, but that’s what the complainants focused on. It seems to show that there are people just pissed that some people are figuring out how to enjoy themselves mildly, even if it is safe (outdoors, socially distanced, in groups under 10, with masks except when taking sips).
By the way, I am not ok with kids (or adults) doing unsafe things that jeopardize the health of their community, but I just don’t think loud music, or choice of beverage, are the cause of covid spread. Not socially distancing, gathering in crowds, not wearing a mask, convening indoors without ventilation–these are things that people should get upset about. Not loud music or a beer. And when it comes to college kids in school this fall, they should all be smart enough to recognize the difference between something genuinely risking the safety of their campus (no masks, no SD, large gathering, etc), and things that are not a covid risk (SD outdoor small group of kids with music and a beer).
It is entirely possible that the virus spread through contact within the rules.
@EmptyNestSoon2 Loud music results in people talking louder to be heard over the music, which results in breath traveling further (more viral spread).
Re alcohol, it is though this will impair judgement, resulting in people forgetting to social distance, whether due to mid-judging 6’ or simply forgetting to be careful.
True about loud talking being less safe, but if the kids in this case were over 6 feet apart and wearing masks, there is no rule about speaking loud. And being outside, perfectly social distanced, and wearing masks, I have not heard of any experts expressing alarm about those conditions. Even so, the complaint then should not be about the music, but about shouting, if shouting occurred and is outlawed. Similarly, while someone may choose to be concerned about a beer, they really only have a leg to stand on to complain about the actual Covid-dangerous behavior (if they then in fact noticed non-social distancing or non-mask wearing compliance) I think it is crazy to complain about a beer. If actual poor judgment results in Covid-unsafe behavior (may/may not happen), complain about the behavior. But whining about hearing music or observing a beer strikes me as someone just mad about others having (safe, within-the-rules) fun, not about actual dangerous behavior.
I mentioned beer because off campus parties are said to be the source of out breaks and this law seems particularly aimed to nip those in the bud.
I live near the beach and the ability of people to safely meet up there instead of indoors has been credited for our low numbers but that was after tight congestion rules where applied. I am not attacking safe methods of having fun but the numbers don’t lie. If there is a local spike among college age people in particular then they are obviously doing something wrong, they are not having fun in a safe way.
Yes, sorry in my head I was conflating two things—your example, but more importantly a culture of tattling I’m reading about on another campus, specifically and oddly to me tattling on things that are clearly not contributing to spread, are things that I believe most reasonable people do not consider unsafe (groups under ten, truly social distancing, outdoors, with masks, but perhaps 6 or 7 people when the state law allows for 15 but the school asked for 5. Or even cases where it is kept to 5, but the fact that they are laughing (with a mask on) and having fun seems to bother some people. No outbreak on this particular campus. It makes me think of being on a highway. Of course you would alert the police if someone is driving erratically and appears drunk, or driving at very high speed in and out of lanes and cutting people off dangerously, etc. but do you call when someone is going 56 in a 55 zone, and not driving to endanger anyone. Anyway, it irked me in the article when students were complaining that their peers were listening to loud music outdoors. They couldn’t complain that they weren’t social distancing, because that wasn’t the case. Just a pet peeve of mine about campus dynamics this fall. And clearly Boulder has something entirely different going on. I’ll move on!
I don’t want to derail the thread and turn it into a legal discussion, but since I believe other college towns are watching Boulder and considering something similar it’s best to explain the legal side.
Age is not a protected class unless older people for housing and employment.
During a public health crisis they can quarantine a group if they have proof that there is a problem in that specific group.
The county and state health departments, the governor, and the state attorney general have all said there was a large % positive in that specific age group in the city of Boulder.
This may or not be fair, but it’s legal.
Since I have a senior we are watching a lot of virtual college tours, and the question has come up in almost everyone of them. So far every college has said they will be accepting the same or more seniors. I think its more important to hit the total enrollment numbers than keep every class the same.
They said the same thing about Prohibition.
There are a lot of laws that have age components to them. Some are state laws (getting married, signing a contract, attending high school (or participating in some events).
The Boulder order specifically allows 18 year old high school students to participate in hs organized activities; the football players at Boulder High can practice, the 18 year old on the CU football team cannot? It appears a 19 year old cannot do anything in Boulder, whether in high school or college.
Last night the bars and restaurants in Boulder had to stop severing alcohol at 10. The rest of the state is 11.
I really don’t see this lasting 2 weeks. I’m not sure how CU is feeding all the dorm students without long lines 3 times a day.
.
So you would be ok with restricting movement for everyone over say 75 (w orw/o comorbities) since they have very high death rates? That, at least had science behind it. And anyone with an underlying health condition or had a comorbidity known to have high death rate (obesity). China already had data in February who was dying. Would that be the best action these past months if the goalpost is to avoid overwhelming the hospitals?
Somehow, I think most here and in the country would find such action repugnant.
Anyway, the overly broadness with no exceptions for pod (how is single parent between the ages of 18-22, of a toddler is supposed to manage; roommates that live together and need to drive to work in one car, etc). Also no nexus for 18-22 year old to where the outbreaks occurred. Just simply and broadly based on age. So if one is 18-22, living on the other side of town, SIP’ing at home, such person can’t commute to work with a family member. Or take them to a doctor if it means getting in the same car.
Interestingly, this may be why then there will be a push for anti discrimination law for all ages! SMH. Because Govt can’t help themselves. And here we were worried about the private sector. 
If 75+ year olds were the ones spreading covid and not dying from it, and the 18-22 y.o.s were dying due to old people partying, that would be more applicable. I don’t think many people would find quarantining them for two weeks to save the younger people’s lives repugnant.
And it was! They said Prohibition was legal, and it was.
The elderly are choosing to shield themselves all ready. They don’t need to have stronger legal measures imposed on them.
Most new cases are in the under 40s.
If the younger people want their “freedom” then they should use it to act responsibly while advice is still only advice.
The Boulder order restricts a 19-year-old person from any gathering, not anything else (unless a resident of the fraternity houses or whatever other listed properties; CU students must also do health monitoring and reporting). The 19-year-old person is not restricted from non-gathering activities; work, school, court ordered matters, and life rites are excluded from the definition of gathering that they are prohibited from.
The residents of the fraternity houses or whatever other listed properties are much more restricted in what they can do, regardless of age.
But, did it work?
Is the issue all 18-22 year olds? So if 30 year olds were partying and doing risky behavior, shouldn’t they also be banned?
Before the CU kids came back, what was the spread among the 18-22 year olds? IF the issue is the CU folks, then only limit those, regardless of age. Yes, 17 and 24 year college kids too.
Why even add the 3rd stipulation for all 18-22 year olds? Really, a married couple 20 and 21 that does not attend the school and wants to commute to work, go grocery shopping, or to the doctor can’t do so? The HO could have limited to where the outbreaks were (the 36 residences, presumably, and even that is in question) and then all CU students.
Regarding the legality of what Boulder County Public Health is doing – there are parts of the Colorado revised statutes that address it. Specifically the following sections:
(V) To investigate and control the causes of epidemic or communicable diseases and conditions affecting public health;
(VI) To establish, maintain, and enforce isolation and quarantine, and in pursuance thereof, and for this purpose only, to exercise physical control over property and over the persons of the people within the jurisdiction of the agency as the agency may find necessary for the protection of the public health;
(VII) To close schools and public places and to prohibit gatherings of people when necessary to protect public health;
(VIII) To investigate and abate nuisances when necessary in order to eliminate sources of epidemic or communicable diseases and conditions affecting public health;
There are a lot of conversations on CC that find the rabbit hole, but this has got to be one of the deepest. Does anyone really care about Boulder’s attempts to reign in the virus, or has this entire conversation spiraled into intellectual masterbation?
Tracing is nearly impossible without complete cooperation. If you want to limit the spread among college students, stay remote and keep the students who can at home. Bring back those who need to be there. Everything else is an expensive game of chance, masquerading as a process to be managed and contained.