Live data from Hacker News

California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

gov.ca.gov

61–70 of 406 posts

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#61

I personally think we need a county-by-county approach. There is a high variation of the infection at local levels. All the news is currently about how bad New York is and it's true but we're not all New York. http://www.countycovid19.com/

In the live address they said that most implementations will be left to the county and local govts. The state isn't giving any specific guidance on masks, for example, leaving that to specific locales.

LA county now requires anyone entering an essential business to wear a mask.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#62
post #30

This entire plan is based on models that do not align with what we are seeing. The graph on slide two[1] of the official CA govt plan shows hospitalizations With Intervention rising exponentially, exceeding our hospital capacity in early June. The actual new infection data shows that the rate of new infections has been decreasing since at least 4/4 [2], meaning that the graph of active hospitalizations should be a be…

Why should infections follow a bell curve? Shouldn't it be the derivative of a the logistic curve, which should be approximately exponential on both ends. I don't see how a quadratic should show up in the exponent; either mathematically or epidemiologically.

Does anyone have the ability to walk through these explanations in a little more detail. I'm having trouble understanding why infections would be a bell curve, or derivative of a log curve.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all sincerity, New York wasn’t Wuhan either. If I were any any other state, I’d absolutely limit travel from NY and screen them.

Really? New York current has quite a few times the casualties of all of China (10834 vs 3341) with a small population than Wuhan and the casualties haven't stopped there. New York by itself has one of the high casualty levels in the world by any measure.

New York started their business closures and stay at home orders 2 weeks after Seattle and California closed down. That’s why they ended up with so many more cases and deaths than the former two.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all sincerity, New York wasn’t Wuhan either. If I were any any other state, I’d absolutely limit travel from NY and screen them.

Really? New York current has quite a few times the casualties of all of China (10834 vs 3341) with a small population than Wuhan and the casualties haven't stopped there. New York by itself has one of the high casualty levels in the world by any measure.

Any comparison using the officially reported death toll in Wuhan at face value is of no value whatsoever.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#65
post #9

I personally think we need a county-by-county approach. There is a high variation of the infection at local levels. All the news is currently about how bad New York is and it's true but we're not all New York. http://www.countycovid19.com/

It's true that regions are different, but I don't see how that translates. Can you be specific? How would a plan for Queens County, NY differ from one for Waukesha WI, except in trivial stuff like dates? Some outbreaks are smaller, but you'll note that they all leveled off at roughly the same time and on the same schedule. That's because we locked down on "New York's schedule"[1]. If we didn't, these places which see…

> except in trivial stuff like dates?

Dates are not trivial when people's very livelihoods are at stake.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#66
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that regions are different, but I don't see how that translates. Can you be specific? How would a plan for Queens County, NY differ from one for Waukesha WI, except in trivial stuff like dates? Some outbreaks are smaller, but you'll note that they all leveled off at roughly the same time and on the same schedule. That's because we locked down on "New York's schedule"[1]. If we didn't, these places which see…

> except in trivial stuff like dates? Dates are not trivial when people's very livelihoods are at stake.

You know what I meant. You can write the same plan for different regions with parameters. There's no inherent regional interest that requires every county government in the US staff its own disease control department.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#67
A real plan would look like this https://imgur.com/spemOeG specifying the levels of restrictions and the metrics we will use to track the metrics. This allows people to understand what to expect the best possible. We already have huge uncertainty, we don't need to add uncertainty of government response on top of uncertainty of the virus. I think there is huge room to debate the numbers and what goes in what level, but this is what a real roadmap looks like.

This "roadmap" is quite scary as this is not a plan that would pass muster in in YC Boardroom. (1) The one chart with data is horribly innacurate: (a) It shows interventions causing worse than no interventions in the short term? (b) Shows hospitalizations increasing despite the fact that they have not for some time. (c) Shows "Surge Capacity" as a static value, which you would hope they are increasing if they really think this is the issue.

(2) It does not specify in any fashion what the different levels of coming back are. When can medical procedures resume? When can non-essential work where social distancing is easy resume (e.g. Los Angeles apparently has banned gardeners, who don't need to get near a soul)?

(3) If he believes masks work (as I do and as indicated in this presentation), why are masks not required and businesses shut down? Shouldn't we do the less painful and restrictive measure first before we shut down businesses?

(4) Most importantly there is not an actual goal clearly articulated here. Is he going for suppression? Is he going for mitigation?

I like many others are deeply upset by leadership from both parties, at all levels of government.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#68

They should quit padding the numbers if they're so concerned about minimizing fatalities. A man gets hit by a bus and tests positive for Coronavirus, I don't care what the science has to say about it, that is not a Coronavirus death and you can't change my mind.

Most places are if anything undercounting fatalities, not overcounting.

Do you have any evidence California is different?

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should infections follow a bell curve? Shouldn't it be the derivative of a the logistic curve, which should be approximately exponential on both ends. I don't see how a quadratic should show up in the exponent; either mathematically or epidemiologically.

Does anyone have the ability to walk through these explanations in a little more detail. I'm having trouble understanding why infections would be a bell curve, or derivative of a log curve.

Cumulative infections would not be a bell curve. They'd be a sigmoid curve, approaching some upper limit (e.g. 100,000).

Current Hospitalizations, which is the number we should be most concerned about, and is reflected by the orange dots on the state's graph, should start low, max out at a number, and eventually return to 0. That should follow something like a bell curve.

I think the confusion is between the "total infections" curve and the "current hospitalizations" curve. The difference between them is huge, and really important. The "Flatten the Curve" idea refers to keeping the number of hospitalizations at any one moment below some upper limit, ideally the state's number of available ICU beds. That's a bell curve.

Re: California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order [pdf]

#70
post #4

I’d like to see something that’s clear and doesn’t risk so much on rapid accurate testing and tracking of... everyone with significant delayed feedback. Something that could be done in rural areas or even developing countries. A reliable next step in the Hammer and the Dance. I found this: http://pandemicbreak.org/

Wouldn't the delay of feedback result in more conservative changes? If we're detecting the peak with a delayed measurement, then the instantaneous measurement would be even further past the peak.

The California plan is to use feedback which is either very slow/delayed (thus dangerous due to exponential growth).

But like quenching an old school high gain regenerative reciever.. the Pandemic Break doesn't require any feedback!

The ~2week quarantine time exponentially reduces carriers at a faster rate than the ~2 week open time allows them to spread.

The idea is to allow commerce/socialization to be shifted into the open time while keeping the number of infected falling to deal with super-spreading or other events. This way though you could have a wedding and keep your parents... or have a corner store and the old grocer, a bar and a bartender.

Post reply on HN