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

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

gov.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 406 posts

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

#81

Post by munk-a »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #77
ajross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't necessarily need shelter-in-place rules Is there a cite for that? Because that's not the way the data looks. Everywhere was growing with roughly the same exponent before lockdown. The numbers were bigger in NY because it grew longer pre-detection, but there's no reason to believe that everywhere else was any different. Really this disease's growth constant looks shockingly consistent almost everywhere in the…

Multiple states don't have shelter-in-place rules, but still remain very different from NY. (They still have some rules, of course; I agree it seems silly to claim that it was safe to do nothing .)

Those states are in for a surprise like Florida was - they may get lucky and just have a very low rate of spread into their state - but if they have a lot of community transmission the disease will spread very quickly and the lack of a reasonable response will be obviously stupid in retrospect once again.

Shelter-in-place is a good general rule - we can roll it back when we've got infrastructure to vaccinate people.

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

#82

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

munk-a wrote: post #81
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple states don't have shelter-in-place rules, but still remain very different from NY. (They still have some rules, of course; I agree it seems silly to claim that it was safe to do nothing .)

Those states are in for a surprise like Florida was - they may get lucky and just have a very low rate of spread into their state - but if they have a lot of community transmission the disease will spread very quickly and the lack of a reasonable response will be obviously stupid in retrospect once again. Shelter-in-place is a good general rule - we can roll it back when we've got infrastructure to vaccinate people.

Florida isn't doing great, but it's not doing as bad as New York either.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about vaccination. As California's roadmap lays out, we'll need to roll back shelter-in-place long before vaccines are available and find less costly ways to mitigate the virus.

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

#83

Post by Shank »

bhickey wrote: post #54
adrianmonk wrote: post #39

From indicator #1: > How prepared is our state to test everyone who is symptomatic? Another view is that opening the economy should involve testing people who are NOT symptomatic. Quoting from an MIT Technology Review article ( https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/08/998785/stop-covi... ): > The key, says Romer, is repeatedly testing everyone without symptoms to identify who is infected. (People with symptoms sho…

> Another view is that opening the economy should involve testing people who are NOT symptomatic. Testing people with symptoms is a waste of tests. When tests are in short supply assume everyone with symptoms is positive, isolate them and test their contacts who don't have symptoms. As of last week, Boston Medical Center had a 44% positive rate on the tests they were running on symptomatic people. They could find mor…

> Testing people with symptoms is a waste of tests.

It's not, though. Someone suffering from severe symptoms that aren't COVID-19 may have other treatment options available, and may be placed in hospitals with less strict isolation requirements. In a perfect world we would have isolation beds and supplies for everybody, but that still doesn't get around the fact that treatment for COVID-19 and bacterial pneumonia are two different beasts, and both lead to similar end results.

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

#85

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

timr wrote: post #80
ajross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't necessarily need shelter-in-place rules Is there a cite for that? Because that's not the way the data looks. Everywhere was growing with roughly the same exponent before lockdown. The numbers were bigger in NY because it grew longer pre-detection, but there's no reason to believe that everywhere else was any different. Really this disease's growth constant looks shockingly consistent almost everywhere in the…

"Everywhere was growing with roughly the same exponent before lockdown." No, they weren't. You're just asserting that this is true. There's effectively no way to know what the doubling rate was in a place like Boise before the national lockdown, because the numbers were in the low single digits: https://covid-19.direct/metro/Boise?tab=glance But even ignoring that...the site you're linking to shows a wide range of sl…

One of the things we urgently need to figure out is how to prevent bad data visualization from leading to bad conclusions. Statistical malpractice isn't just a meme phrase anymore.

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

#86

Post by ajross »

timr wrote: post #80
ajross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't necessarily need shelter-in-place rules Is there a cite for that? Because that's not the way the data looks. Everywhere was growing with roughly the same exponent before lockdown. The numbers were bigger in NY because it grew longer pre-detection, but there's no reason to believe that everywhere else was any different. Really this disease's growth constant looks shockingly consistent almost everywhere in the…

"Everywhere was growing with roughly the same exponent before lockdown." No, they weren't. You're just asserting that this is true. There's effectively no way to know what the doubling rate was in a place like Boise before the national lockdown, because the numbers were in the low single digits: https://covid-19.direct/metro/Boise?tab=glance But even ignoring that...the site you're linking to shows a wide range of sl…

Idaho on 20 March was at 23 confirmed cases (above the "low single digits" metric you picked, but you can pick other points too and get the same result). On 31 March it hit 515.

That's a doubling period of less than three days. It was spreading every bit as fast as New York was. It looks like exactly the same chart with a different constant factor. Yet you insist that these identical results are somehow due to different underlying behavior? Why? Where's the research showing that?

Because the pretty obvious hypothesis is that the disease was spreading the same way because it's the same disease and doesn't care about whether you live in Boise.

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

#87

Post by maxlamb »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #27
maxlamb wrote: post #24

Why is it that hospitalizations are expected to keep increasing indefinitely even with the interventions in place? I assume the graph represents point-in-time hospitalizations and not accumulated # of interventions? If so it would be nice to see some of their assumptions, like average expected duration of hospitalization. I just don't understand why hospitalizations keep going up in this roadmap when every country th…

Where does it say that? The chart only goes through May.

The graph keeps going up in an exponential curve, even the one with interventions, through the end of May. You can see even the rate increasing at the end of May, so that means acceleration of growth with no hint of a leveling off. If they see it leveling off at some point I don't understand why they don't then extend the date range so we can see that.

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

#88

Post by mlindner »

joe_the_user wrote: post #32
runawaybottle wrote: post #21

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.

The key thing is "reported" casualties. It's well known that actual casualties in China were MUCH higher than actually reported.

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

#89

Post by mlindner »

munk-a wrote: post #79
djrogers wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It has value - it should just be treated very skeptically. And, honestly, the US numbers are highly inaccurate as well due to a simply lack of an ability to test (instead of a lack of will to publish the real numbers).

The casualty numbers are quite accurate. The US records every cause of death.

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

#90

Post by bhickey »

Shank wrote: post #83
bhickey wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another view is that opening the economy should involve testing people who are NOT symptomatic. Testing people with symptoms is a waste of tests. When tests are in short supply assume everyone with symptoms is positive, isolate them and test their contacts who don't have symptoms. As of last week, Boston Medical Center had a 44% positive rate on the tests they were running on symptomatic people. They could find mor…

> Testing people with symptoms is a waste of tests. It's not, though. Someone suffering from severe symptoms that aren't COVID-19 may have other treatment options available, and may be placed in hospitals with less strict isolation requirements. In a perfect world we would have isolation beds and supplies for everybody, but that still doesn't get around the fact that treatment for COVID-19 and bacterial pneumonia are…

> Someone suffering from severe symptoms that aren't COVID-19 may have other treatment options available

And someone suffering from severe symptoms has other diagnostic options: a chest X-ray or CT.

If your goal is to find people with coronavirus (and this should be your goal if you want to slow its spread) you'll almost always find more of them by testing people without symptoms.

Post reply on HN