New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by fiftyfifty » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

dyingkneepad wrote: post #241

fiftyfifty wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Italy and Spain each had a record number of deaths today at 627 and 212 respectively. The next two weeks are going to be terrible in the US.

We get shocked when an airplane with 150-300 people falls: we spend months talking about it. Now we see multiple instances of these numbers daily: two airplanes in Italy, one in Spain, a small one in the US, but it still doesn't feel as terrifying as a real airplane crash to me. I'm not saying I'm denying COVID or that the deaths are not horrible, just that for some unknown reason airplane crashes still seem so much…

The one that bothers me is 9-11, how many trillions of dollars did the US spend after that on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the war against terror? We are likely to see several 9-11s worth of deaths in the US due to Covid-19, will we spend even a fraction of what we spent after 9-11 to be more prepared for the next pandemic?

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

#262

Post by CPLX » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

fiftyfifty wrote: post #56

It seems highly likely that the US is headed where the whole of Europe is now: over 100,000 positives, over 5,000 deaths. We waited too long for actions like this. It will take a month before we see a drop in cases and deaths

Well seeing as how fatalities from workplace related injuries average about 5,000-6,000 a year, maybe we'll end up ahead.

In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything like the same discussion about priorities with this specific situation.

I'm not saying the answer would necessarily come out any different, but it's strange we're not really asking the questions.

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

#263

Post by throwaway5752 » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

vincentmarle wrote: post #252

throwaway5752 wrote: post #129

There is no doubt Cuomo should be the national point person for the response to the crisis based on his performance so far. He is independently working with regional manufacturing to retool to make critical medical PPE and ventilators, and has organized a regional coalition including CT, NJ, and PA. I have not agreed with him all the time, but his crisis management has been exemplary and he will have saved many lives…

I think that Gov Newsom of CA has been doing a way better job than Cuomo: - implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count - doesn't fight with his mayors or the President - no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later

He's done great, too, and if either of them were in charge of coordinating the response it would be preferable.

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

#264

Post by danaris » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:17 PM UTC

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.

From my reading of it, the NY order is directed at businesses—essentially, "you must not require your employees to be on site."

It's not primarily intended to tell individuals "you must stay home," just to strongly encourage that and make it easier for us to do so.

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

#265

Post by cameldrv » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:17 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #247

cameldrv wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The progression to death is something like: (very rough, from memory) Day 0: Infection Day 5: First Symptoms Day 11: Hospital admission/shortness of breath/oxygen Day 14: Ventilator Day 21: Death If there's no ventilator on day 14, the process is tragically accelerated.

I wonder what percentage of people have been saved by ventilators vs. merely had their death delayed.

Mortality rate of people who get put on a ventilator is in the ballpark of 40%.

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

#266

Post by ImaCake » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

redisman wrote: post #195

fiftyfifty wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem we are going to have in the US is some states are responding better than others. NY looks bad right now because they are testing a lot. States like Florida, Louisiana and Georgia are already in double digit deaths each and don't have the positive cases to account for them. Going forward the rate of deaths will be far more indicative of what's happening than just the positive cases and that is going to con…

As you can see with WA, deaths is not a perfect metric either. Florida also has a lot of retirement homes and one getting hit will skew that metric a lot.

Yeah, I am very skeptical of extrapolation from deaths to get total cases. Just looking at China's numbers province by province reveals that the death rate varies quite a bit. Hubei has a very high mortality rate compared to the provinces surrounding it. Most provinces around Hubei had roughly 1 death per 1000 cases. But Henan, to the north had 22 deaths per thousand. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as a titular mortality rate for these viruses.

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

#267

Post by henryfjordan » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

vincentmarle wrote: post #252

throwaway5752 wrote: post #129

There is no doubt Cuomo should be the national point person for the response to the crisis based on his performance so far. He is independently working with regional manufacturing to retool to make critical medical PPE and ventilators, and has organized a regional coalition including CT, NJ, and PA. I have not agreed with him all the time, but his crisis management has been exemplary and he will have saved many lives…

I think that Gov Newsom of CA has been doing a way better job than Cuomo: - implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count - doesn't fight with his mayors or the President - no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later

Newsom referred to California as a "Nation State" repeatedly in his latest address, which is a great way to tell the Federal Government to pound sand. He took Trump's call for each state to fend for itself seriously. I wouldn't say that he's not fighting with the president.

He's been doing a great job though

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

#268

Post by dboreham » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

oat_bravo_nap wrote: post #248

quartzite wrote: post #84

It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. As viral spread continues due to half hearted social distancing, when will we be able to return to normalcy? Given the characteristics of this virus even a few cases floating around seem to be enough to reignite contagion. So we persist in stasis for a month or a year with no end in sight while the economy begins to collapse, which will a…

South Korea stopped the infection without "full measures."

They acted earlier.

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

#269

Post by vkou » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #254

ransom1538 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry what? His state has the highest infection rate and he just NOW did a 100% workforce reduction. He hasn't even issued "a shelter in place" order. BARS WERE OPEN MONDAY. Thousands of deaths will be on his hands. I think he should be criminally prosecuted. NY needs to be locked down NOW .

For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield. On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses. In circumstances like this, it is not suspect in the least. I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosec…

> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield.

I don't understand why this meme keeps getting repeated, when the power to quarantine has been rather conclusively litigated in the courts.

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

#270

Post by henryfjordan » Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 8:23 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #254

ransom1538 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry what? His state has the highest infection rate and he just NOW did a 100% workforce reduction. He hasn't even issued "a shelter in place" order. BARS WERE OPEN MONDAY. Thousands of deaths will be on his hands. I think he should be criminally prosecuted. NY needs to be locked down NOW .

For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield. On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses. In circumstances like this, it is not suspect in the least. I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosec…

Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines". Almost no right in the constitution is unlimited.

Speech and movement can be restricted with good cause, and this virus certainly counts. States right now very much have the legal power to say "no gatherings of any sort, no leaving your house without good cause, etc".