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

161–170 of 406 posts

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

#161

Post by [deleted] »

wahern wrote: post #147
charlesju wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think Governor Cuomo said something very interesting the other day, to paraphrase, when he was asked whether he should've started stay at home earlier and if that would've saved lives. Of course it would have, but the interviewer is not taking into account compliance and public sentiment. I'm living on the West Coast, but the way I remember the news from NY was that De Blasio wouldn't shutdown the city because he…

[deleted]

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

#162

Post by anon543210 »

Maybe I'm the idiot but its pretty clear as to whats on the roadmap.

>defines a goal or desired outcome and includes the major steps or milestones needed to reach it.

Yeah its missing some specifics but there are certainly goals stated before the decision to relax the stay at home policy is reached.

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

#163

Post by stDerfel »

wahern wrote: post #147
charlesju wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think Governor Cuomo said something very interesting the other day, to paraphrase, when he was asked whether he should've started stay at home earlier and if that would've saved lives. Of course it would have, but the interviewer is not taking into account compliance and public sentiment. I'm living on the West Coast, but the way I remember the news from NY was that De Blasio wouldn't shutdown the city because he…

I recommend you read this which details how Breed's actions seem somewhat politically motivated to steal show. Chiefly, there was an agreement that all counties would let their health director's announce the lock down order and Breed jumped ahead to announce it herself.

https://missionlocal.org/2020/04/covid-atlantic-london-breed...

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

#164

Post by 0xy »

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.

Australia and Singapore's governments are rolling out an app that allows them to track every person you meet with for more than a short period of time.

Why would anyone trust them to not abuse this data?

If they wanted people to volunteer information, maybe they shouldn't have repeatedly abused trust.

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

#165

Post by slg »

weaksauce wrote: post #144
mikekij wrote: 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…

the dotted line is what we would expect if the intervention is removed as of today. the red dots are actual hospitalizations as of right now. the blue line was the predicted line for hospitalizations... she mentions that we are doing better than the prediction as of right now. it was not altogether that clear but in the context of the press briefing it's more clear.

This is poorly designed graph because it can give the wrong impression when it isn't accompanied with the explanation that was given in the press conference. I am not usually one to make a "this should be higher" comment on HN, but this is the proper interpretation and lots of people are being misled by not seeing it.

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

#166

Post by 0xy »

ravenstine wrote: post #130

It doesn't make any sense that we continue the lockdown in its current state. Hospitals in California aren't overrun. We were insisted upon that the "flattening the curve" was to prevent the medical system from being overwhelmed. With what we've been able to do, we're not even close to having overrun hospitals. By now, we should have ramped up the system to account for greater numbers of severe cases. Given that, we…

Agreed, and it's worth noting that the death rate from economic damage could be significantly higher than the death rate from coronavirus.

For each 1% increase in unemployment, several thousand people die. Unemployment substantially increases the risk of mortality.

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

#167

Post by clairity »

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…

99% of the reduction in transmission comes from physical distancing alone while inside of closed spaces with strangers. hygiene is likely negligible outside of a very few high interaction zones inside those enclosed spaces. testing only improves targeting who to distance (isolate).

it's a virus that rides on tiny masses of water to hopefully jump into the nasopharyngeal cavity of the next host. if it doesn't make it to those warm and juicy brachiae, it exponentially decays to the elements in hours. relative to air, those virus-laden water masses are heavy. most fall at your feet. some fly a few feet. very few make it many feet.

then imagine your chances of making a full-court basket (94 feet, 9.4" diameter ball in 18" hoop) and then divide those odds by the several orders of magnitude smaller that viruses are relative to us.

wearing masks (or gloves) outside makes no sense. you might as well walk around with your own lightning rod too then.

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

#168

Post by mappu »

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.

Contact tracing does not need to be a privacy invasion - the Apple/Google implementation seems very well thought out.

https://ncase.me/contact-tracing

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

#169

Post by torpfactory »

citilife wrote: post #117
mikekij wrote: 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…

Something weird happened in California, where 20% of their tests were coming back positive, then all the sudden 04/04/2020 they started seeing https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lettergram/covid19-analysi... They also barely tested at all prior to 04/04/2020: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lettergram/covid19-analysi... In generally though, the rate of positive tests is increasing nation wide: https://raw.githubuser…

When testing is scarce it is used as a clinical tool to help make decisions about treatment. For example: patient has pneumonia. If its bacterial pneumonia a course of the right kind of antibiotics will be very helpful. If its COVID, those antibiotics won't do anything, and the patient may not get the therapies they really need.

Once testing becomes more available, doctors use it to rule out COVID even on patients who aren't very sick, to help make sure they those patients aren't spreading it, instead of just making treatment decisions.

Ideally once testing capacity gets high enough we could start testing every contact of an infected person, or just randomly sample people.

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

#170

Post by perl4ever »

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…

"For example, look at the numbers in South Korea, Japan, etc. (where mask-wearing is common) compared to ours."

There seems to be a huge difference in the trajectory of cases in Japan, vs South Korea, so I don't know what you think you're saying, if you group them together. In South Korea, cases went up and then apparently flattened out almost completely. In Japan, the graph I saw has been lower than in other places but is, almost uniquely, not flattening so far, even in the way that Italy or the US has.

So it makes no sense to me to combine them and say "look, that is the example". If one is the example, the other most likely isn't.

Post reply on HN