Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 393 posts

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#101

Post by bosie »

pmoriarty wrote: post #78
ilamont wrote: post #6

There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially Then people won't take the rules seriously. Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.

> > There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially > Then people won't take the rules seriously. What should the government do to these people? Arrest them? Already there are news headlines saying "US jails begin releasing prisoners to stem Covid-19 infections" [1][2] and from that article, specifically relating to New York: "New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday tha…

> Arrest them?

Why not? Couldn't you postpone the prison time for a later point in time? Or make them pay fees right away (and a high fee).

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#102

Post by jfk13 »

vkou wrote: post #17
ilamont wrote: post #6

There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially Then people won't take the rules seriously. Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.

I've driven past a park yesterday, five miles away from the center of the outbreak in the US. It was packed to the grills with schoolchildren in the playground, and their parents watching. People aren't taking the rules seriously until you shut things down.

The more usual expression would be "packed to the gills", but in the context of American parks, perhaps "grills" is an appropriate word after all!

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#103

Post by psychlops »

docbrown wrote: post #59
stronglikedan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a reaction to people not doing it on their own sufficiently enough, like what happened in Italy. Perhaps Washingtonians are taking the recommendations more seriously, so they don't require an official mandate. That decision can't be a light one, and I don't envy those that have to make it.

There is no law enforcement action being taken for the NY or CA order. They’re relying on “social-pressure” to keep people inside.

It takes time to criminalize freedom. For some, it can't happen fast enough.

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#104

Post by jeremyjh »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #74
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA is huge, and the virus is hitting different areas with different intensities. Its spread is heavily impacted by population density and rates of random social encounters. A Nationwide lockdown might make sense if the goal was to snuff the infection out, but as of now the goal is to lower the peak of the curve. If you lock down too early, you extend the infection to a length of time that makes the lockdown impossib…

> A Nationwide lockdown might make sense if the goal was to snuff the infection out The goal needs to be to snuff the infection out. Otherwise, we will be like this for the next year and a half while we wait for the vaccine, which IMO is not acceptable when a little extra short-term sacrifice can get us near eradication inside two months. Also, even if the curve is mediated by density, it seems clear enough that a la…

Snuffing the virus out is not an option at this point. Perhaps they could have done that in Wuhan in December, but it is not an choice we can make for the United States in March. And no, we aren't waiting for a vaccine. We will build herd immunity as people contract the virus, develop antibodies and recover from it. The goal now is to moderate the rate at which people acquire the disease so that the critical cases do not overflow health care capacity.

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#105

Post by im3w1l »

40four wrote: post #49
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The side effects of exponential growth. It changes minds quickly.

I think the growth is a result of a focused effort to ramp up testing. Meanwhile if we are to have any confidence in the numbers (we probably shouldn't), according to the John's Hopkins counts, New York state currently has a surprisingly low CFR. 38 deaths / 5715 cases = 0.7% CFR

38 / 5715 = 0.007 = 0.7%. Which is roughly what we expect.

Edit: originally post I replied to said 0.007%

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#106

Post by s1artibartfast »

Whut wrote: post #44

I feel like we should just do this nation wide.

That would do more harm than the virus. The virus is not everywhere[1] and no lockdown is perfect, so the virus will spread hit different places at different times. It is better to lock down regions or states as needed

Also, unnecessary lockdowns can ruin the credibility of the heath authorities. IF we lock down counties with no cases, not only are we needlessly disrupting lives, people wont listen to the order when it IS necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_t...

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#108

Post by 40four »

papa_bear wrote: post #96
40four wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree... it doesn't make sense to just throw a blanket lock down over the whole county indiscriminately. Same goes for state governors to throw these blanket shutdowns of bars a restaurants over the whole state at once. I don't understand why we can't take a more localize approach to this. Maybe only implement the lock downs in the worst areas, or areas entering acceleration phase. Can't we be smarter about this? W…

Without out adequate testing, we can't know where to localize the lockdowns to.

Agreed, I don't understand why there isn't a concerted effort to ramp up testing. NYC is doing this now, part of the reason their total cases are going so high so quickly. Lockdown makes sense for them right now. The medical facilities are starting to feel the pressure.

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#109

Post by jellicle »

vehementi wrote: post #58
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA is huge, and the virus is hitting different areas with different intensities. Its spread is heavily impacted by population density and rates of random social encounters. A Nationwide lockdown might make sense if the goal was to snuff the infection out, but as of now the goal is to lower the peak of the curve. If you lock down too early, you extend the infection to a length of time that makes the lockdown impossib…

> If you lock down too early, you extend the infection to a length of time that makes the lockdown impossible. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Poster seems to be thinking about the "UK approach" which is declared to be managing the situation until population immunity catches up and helps snuff it out.

But, since we're starting from zero natural immunity and a virulent disease with long hospitalizations, if you actually do the math here it never works - there's no situation where you can keep the number of infected low enough to not use up too many hospital beds and also high enough to get population immunity in any reasonable period of time. Those values simply don't overlap (which apparently someone has told the UK now, I guess).

The only viable approach is massive lockdowns to reduce the number of infected to a reasonable number followed by super-aggressive public health interventions for each and every infected person to control future spread.

Re: New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services

#110

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

jeremyjh wrote: post #104
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A Nationwide lockdown might make sense if the goal was to snuff the infection out The goal needs to be to snuff the infection out. Otherwise, we will be like this for the next year and a half while we wait for the vaccine, which IMO is not acceptable when a little extra short-term sacrifice can get us near eradication inside two months. Also, even if the curve is mediated by density, it seems clear enough that a la…

Snuffing the virus out is not an option at this point. Perhaps they could have done that in Wuhan in December, but it is not an choice we can make for the United States in March. And no, we aren't waiting for a vaccine. We will build herd immunity as people contract the virus, develop antibodies and recover from it. The goal now is to moderate the rate at which people acquire the disease so that the critical cases do…

Snuffing out the virus absolutely is an option. If we adopt a stance that makes R0 > We will build herd immunity as people contract the virus, develop antibodies and recover from it.

This is a pipe dream, at least outside the context where we are going to accept megadeaths or years of social distancing. The hospital capacity of the US is such that, if we were to run them all at 100% and somehow hold the virus exactly to the level that maximally utilizes ICUs, it would still take the better part of a decade before we got to the point of having herd immunity.

Post reply on HN