> Maybe you’ve seen in-person events in your community lead to large-scale COVID outbreaks or even deaths, and that terrifies you.
This kind of alarmism destroys any credibility the article might have.
(Edit: I posted the above comment two days ago, interesting that the story has been revived and the comment is editable again)
We're going through a nasty spike in the Santa Clara Covid sewage charts right now - I trust those over most other sources because they're more reliable than self-reported testing numbers: https://twitter.com/covidsewage/status/1526566135734206464
That's part of HN's "second chance" queue[1], which bumps up old and interesting stories. For whatever reason it also adjusts the timestamps.
Just because your risk tolerance is higher than other people doesn't mean you have to be an asshole about it.
I wonder if the article is satire
If I have to isolate a few days, and then my kids too, even if we're not worried for our health, it's a major annoyance for work.
That being said, I don't like virtual events at all, but I'll also be picky about in-person events, because of time and travel environmental impact.
from today: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/05/17/nyc-hig...
> New Yorkers should “consider avoiding higher-risk activities (such as crowded indoor gatherings)
It never will be safe. That means figuring out how to live with COVID, not behaving as if COVID doesn't exist.
