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

131–140 of 406 posts

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

#131

Post by Talanes »

impendia wrote: post #118
clairity wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is probably a little overly cautious relative to the actual reduction in risk (you'd have to be especially unlucky to get infected just from regular breathing in a grocery store), but not terribly unreasonable, particularly for those with co-morbidities. but i routinely see people with masks and gloves on while walking outside. not shopping, or going to shop, just walking. it's so odd, and frankly, wasteful.

> frankly, wasteful. I think I disagree. It seems that face masks are quite effective in reducing the spread of illness. For example, look at the numbers in South Korea, Japan, etc. (where mask-wearing is common) compared to ours. Masks don't need to do 100% of the job -- rather, we would hope that in combination with moderate social distancing, better hygiene, improved testing, etc. we could reduce the rate of trans…

Can't defend the gloves though.

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

#132

Post by ravenstine »

hilbertseries wrote: post #61
dickjocke wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty sure that's just the City of Los Angeles, not the county. I haven't been to any grocery stores outside DTLA that required masks. (though 7-11 did)

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

#133

Post by ravenstine »

ABeeSea wrote: post #5
mdorazio wrote: post #3

Am I missing something? I don't see any kind of roadmap in here - it's just 6 generic talking points without any actual plan or timeline.

He said during the press conference that exact dates might be available in two-four weeks. He wants to see a further reduction in hospitalizations, an increase in testing, and a supply chain for PPE before committing to reopening dates.

> He said during the press conference that exact dates might be available in two-four weeks.

That's incredibly vague. Almost worthless, given that they already extended the order by another month at the last minute.

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

#134

Post by yodsanklai »

throwaway237683 wrote: post #123
yodsanklai wrote: post #112

I would cynically summarize this as: lockdown is economically unsustainable. We need to go back to work. Let's hope we can control the epidemics this time better than before the lockdown. We may have new tools this time (contact tracing, masks, test). But we're not really sure they'll work. It's the exact same situation in France where we're planning to go out of lockdown in 4 weeks. It seems unclear that we'll have…

Isn't it amazing that an absolutely massive privacy invasion that is called contact tracing is already accepted as _inevitable_ if we are ever to be allowed to step out of our homes? Talk about cynicism.

> if we are ever to be allowed to step out of our homes?

In France, we need to fill a form every time we want to leave our homes. Any non-work related trip should be limited to one hour and 1km, at most once a day.

This was decided with no vote or concertation within a couple of days. It also applies to people who live in rural area. They even fly drones in the mountains in order to catch lonely hikers breaking the rules. It's crazy.

Worth than that, part of the population is getting obsessed about rule-breakers, as if lone cyclists suddenly became a danger for the nation. The police is flooded with calls of people denouncing cyclists, hikers, or joggers...

Funny thing, our president said in his speech that this pandemics shall not restrict our freedom.

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

#135

Post by ravenstine »

bsder wrote: post #19
dsalzman wrote: post #14

My favorite line so far. Opening up areas of the country in an uncoordinated fashion is like having a peeing section in a pool...

It's not actually a very good analogy. A peeing section in a pool simply diffuses and doesn't spontaneously generate another high-density peeing section elsewhere in the pool. We wish Covid-19 would simply diffuse down with distance.

Did you ever swim in a pool and wonder why your eyes burned?

That's not the chlorine alone. The ammonia in the piss combines with the chlorine to create chloramine, which causes the eye burning and respiratory problems associated with pool water. It doesn't even take that much piss in the first place, and once it diffuses in the water, it will affect the whole pool.

I'd say it's an excellent analogy. Whether it's noticeable or not, if one person pisses in the pool, everyone's swimming through their piss.

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

#136

Post by gdulli »

sergiotapia wrote: post #121
gdulli wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, because they live with people who aren't at risk and if those people go about their lives it defeats the purpose. Second, if everyone not explicitly at high risk went about their normal business, some percentage of them would still need medical attention and the hospitals would run out of beds, leaving some to die.

So, you live with people that are at risk, you can stay home too! Second: That's the nature of nature. If you want, you can protect yourself, stay home!

And what happens when you, with your good judgement, decide to protect yourself and stay home, and then you have an unrelated treatable condition but die because no hospital could take you because they're all busy dealing with all the Coronavirus patients who were left to their good judgement and didn't stay home?

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

#137

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

ninetyfurr wrote: post #50

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.

One pathological example doesn't make a trend.

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

#138

Post by pfranz »

charlesju wrote: post #109
mchusma wrote: post #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, bu…

The reason why your solution is not good is because it pigeon holes the government into expectations. The government doesn't have a crystal ball as to how this all plays out, they need to have the flexibility to change how they want to respond to each situation without having to defend an ultimatum. For example, even in your own example here are several situations you didn't account: -- The availability of tests for…

The attached spreadsheet is basically I've been waiting to see. I figured from the title of this post that's what this would be. Everyone I talk to is asking, "Now what? Do we just keep doing this until there's a vaccine?" This post is "California's Roadmap" as in California the government, not California the public. They all seem like questions they should have been asking themselves at least a month ago.

Sure, keep the green columns internal, but broadcast the "Levels" and restrictions, incorporate your bullet points (like temp checks). That way people can prepare for moving to "Level 4" with a rough timeline. With a possible second wave and next fall/winter being inevitable I don't think anyone would be surprised about moving backward.

Personally, I'm not upset by this. It just doesn't seem very useful to the public.

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

#139

Post by riazrizvi »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #110
riazrizvi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This plan also ignores the question of the majority of people who have likely been infected with no symptoms that could be identified with widespread Serology/Antibody tests. I find it alarming that this plan ignores that, is the governor priming is for population wide vaccination that is likely to be unnecessary? If we confirm widespread recovery and immunity then larger numbers of people can get back to life as usu…

The plan ignores that because people working on this are consistently finding infection rates of less than a few percent. Stanford tested 2888 samples that were negative for flu and other respiratory viruses and didn't find any positive for SAR-COV2 until Feb 21st and Feb23.

A source for what you are saying is the linked SF article [1] which indicates that of ~3k evidently sick people with flu symptoms, 0.1-1% were confirmed to have COVID-19. Though note this is not random population sampling, on an interesting scale, so ignores asymptomatic question. Worldwide analysis of death rates [2], indicates #infected-so-far = 700-1600 x #dead so far. And data from Iceland [3], the only country with widespread sampling of asymptomatic population, is aligned with these numbers. Based on the analysis and support from Iceland, Covid-19 testing to see if patients actively have the disease are likely inaccurate and also a policy of only permitting testing of severe symptom patients is depressing reported numbers of once infected.

[1] https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/Think-you-got-the...

[2] Analysis of #infected today from #dead today, using following assumptions:

1. death statistics are reliable, since cause of death tests can adequately collect fluid samples (a major source of inaccuracy in COVID-19 testing), source = talking to medical staff at Bay Area sites.

2. E[days between first infection and death] = 14 (lost the source at the moment), Therefore, number of dead today D => number of infected 14 days ago = 100 D

3. rate of death increase consistently trends around 25%/day or 15% with full lockdown, source CDC situation reports worldwide excluding regions with restricted access to journalists

4. therefore, #infected today = #infected 14 days ago growing at 25% daily = 22X, or 7X if your region was locked down for last 2 weeks

5. so #infected=2200D or 700D

[3] Last week, CDC reported 2 deaths today for Iceland, and admittedly-non-random sampling by DeCode indicated upto 1% of population have/had virus, upto 3600. Iceland has done strict quarantining of confirmed and suspected cases, and extensive testing since February, so despite no lockdown, I would put them at the 700X end of the estimate. They report ~1000 confirmed cases, so they would actually estimate 3600-1000 infected so far. My estimate would have indicated 2200-700 X D (= today's deaths, 2) = 4400 to 1400 cases.

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

#140

Post by sergiotapia »

gdulli wrote: post #136
sergiotapia wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you live with people that are at risk, you can stay home too! Second: That's the nature of nature. If you want, you can protect yourself, stay home!

And what happens when you, with your good judgement, decide to protect yourself and stay home, and then you have an unrelated treatable condition but die because no hospital could take you because they're all busy dealing with all the Coronavirus patients who were left to their good judgement and didn't stay home?

1. Your hypothetical isn't a possibility. The numbers do not reflect that possibility, not even close.

2. Even if it were a possibility, it's that vs. shutting down peoples lives for a very long time. "Is your life worth my liberty?" - that's something we fundamentally disagree on.

Post reply on HN