Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order

#91

Post by rsynnott » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 6:24 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #40

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #26

Have other car factories had to shut down, or is the Tesla plant unique for being in an urban area? The UAW seems to be trying to get Michigan/Midwest plants shutdown, and of course the southern plants aren’t union.

Some are shutting down. Tesla is different because all their cars are ordered by someone and so shutting down impacts customers. Others are just building for market and since people are not buying now they are more interested in shutting down production because it just builds up inventory that they need to sell (often meaning a sale). I'm not going to comment on if they should shut down. With the right provision it i…

> Tesla is different because all their cars are ordered by someone and so shutting down impacts customers.

Eh? Who cares? Other manufacturers also have a downstream.

Re: Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order

#92

Post by perl4ever » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 11:03 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #70

_ea1k wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we don't need an egg mcmuffin now either, but I'm pretty sure those are still allowed. My point is that the boundary of "essential" is surprisingly amorphous.

You're contrasting hot food with a new car that has a six week or more lead time and no shortage. There are a lot of traffic still on the road because they too are essential (e.g. delivery vehicles/drivers), they need to eat, hot food fills an essentially need. Nobody "needs" a new Tesla in a crisis.

Production of cars for civilians stopped in WWII. On the other hand, it was so the factories could make products for the war which doesn't seem applicable now.

Re: Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order

#93

Post by perl4ever » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 1:26 AM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #92

Someone1234 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're contrasting hot food with a new car that has a six week or more lead time and no shortage. There are a lot of traffic still on the road because they too are essential (e.g. delivery vehicles/drivers), they need to eat, hot food fills an essentially need. Nobody "needs" a new Tesla in a crisis.

Production of cars for civilians stopped in WWII. On the other hand, it was so the factories could make products for the war which doesn't seem applicable now.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, within hours I saw an article claiming GM was looking into whether they could divert resources to healthcare products.

Re: Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order

#94

Post by manicdee » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 5:19 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #19

manicdee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in contact with people from the plant or do you use separate toilets, cafes, and supermarkets? Shelter in place is about preventing person-to-person spread of the disease through direct contact or via intermediary such as a bench, chair or physical currency. COVID-19 is not going to spread from the plant to your house without some kind of transmission mechanism.

It could plausibly spread between workers at the plant, whether while working, while commuting, while on break, while passing through doors, or via touch surfaces such as doorknobs.

Same everywhere. Grocers are still going to be open.

Re: Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order

#95

Post by a3n » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

_ea1k wrote: post #69

a3n wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be fair to Tesla Why do we need to be fair to a blatant rule breaker in a health crisis?

Because we should be fair to everyone, at least to the extent practical. Isn't that obvious?

The implication it's that to be fair to Tesla, we should look the other way when they break the rules, because the structure of their gathering is somehow less harmful than other gatherings.

I'm not on board with that.

Re: Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order

#96

Post by manicdee » Thu, Mar 19, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

lmeyerov wrote: post #49

manicdee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in contact with people from the plant or do you use separate toilets, cafes, and supermarkets? Shelter in place is about preventing person-to-person spread of the disease through direct contact or via intermediary such as a bench, chair or physical currency. COVID-19 is not going to spread from the plant to your house without some kind of transmission mechanism.

Alameda county, as with most of the counties in the bay area, already has outbreaks. Shelter in place gives time for current cases to go symptomatic & become traceable, among other benefits. Testing only effectively started last week, and is still a joke compared to what other countries with outbreaks of this level are doing. I'm suspecting Tesla is employing sock puppets, or people with too much invested in Tesla, a…

Testing only helps if sensible and sustainable transmission control protocols are in place. Shelter-is-place is absolutely unsustainable, and wholesale testing of the population is economically infeasible in a population the size of California.

There have been successes with wholesale testing in towns in Italy but those populations are small enough to test while everyone is quarantined for a short period. Then when the quarantine ends the disease will spread anyway thanks to false negatives or new imports.