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

181–190 of 406 posts

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

#181

Post by macintux »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71
jandrese wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Covid-19 spreads extremely fast in unprepared populations. It only takes one unaware person to infect hundreds. Check out what happened in South Korea where they had the problem contained until one woman decided to go to church.

The woman went to a very large church, with over 1,000 people in the room. Such large gatherings won't be allowed for a while.

A few religious leaders seem intent on making those large gatherings happen, regardless of prevailing medical and legal advice.

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

#182

Post by maxlamb »

maxsilver wrote: post #176
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…

> why hospitalizations keep going up in this roadmap when every country that has put strict social distancing measures in effect starts to see a leveling-off and decrease in hospitalization after around the 3 week mark Because that's not a safe assumption. Hospitalizations are still going up in areas across the US, even in areas of US that are now on week 4 or 5 of lockdown. Michigan, for example, is on week 4 and wh…

Michigan’s order started on March 23rd, so just 3 weeks and 1 day ago. I guess next week we’ll have better data on the impact.

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

#183

Post by macintux »

mlindner wrote: post #89
munk-a wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is categorically false. They’re not testing every dead person for the virus, and most people die from one of its side effects, like pneumonia.

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

#184

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ajross wrote: post #122
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All right, here's a different example. Loving County, TX, is roughly 50 or 100 people. It has roughly the area of Los Angeles County. "Don't leave your house" is a bit more ridiculous when the next humans are 20 miles away. Sure, maybe don't go visit them... but stay at home? Why?

OK. That seems like sort of a strawman, but fine. I'm OK with very rural areas having a "Stay home, OR at least 20 miles from the nearest people" rule. Is Loving Texas really chafing under the existing shelter order? I mean, surely that's the way it's being enforced currently, no?

Out there? I doubt it's being enforced at all. How would you?

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

#185

Post by dsjoerg »

sergiotapia wrote: post #106

I don't understand why at risk people don't just stay at home. Why lock everybody else up? Enough is enough, kids need to go back to school and people need to go back to work. This document seems hand-wavy and doesn't answer anything.

Fair questions. What fatality rate are you expecting for not-at-risk people? Is that risk of death acceptable to you? What risk of death should I expect, I'm a healthy 47 year old male. Is it 0.1% or 0.01%? The difference between those two matters to me and the research isn't clear yet as far as I can tell.

By doing a bunch of the steps implied in the document my chance of surviving is better, by keeping the infection rate in the populace lower so that I'm less likely to get infected and die before the vaccine arrives.

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

#186

Post by esoterica »

krustyburger wrote: post #177
arcticbull wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all know each right has its limits when the greater good is at stake. Largely, it's intent that matters.

The idea of inalienable rights is antithetical to this outlook. No matter how noble the authorities’ intentions may be, certain essential rights are allegedly sacrosanct.

The draft is still legal and constitutional. If society and the constitution thinks it's acceptable to send 18 year old boys against their will to get machine-gunned in a foreign jungle in the name of "national security", then by those standards none of the measures being proposed to combat the coronavirus are an unprecendented or unacceptable violation of any so-called inalienable rights.

The virus poses a larger threat to national security than the Viet Cong, after all.

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

#187

Post by lostmsu »

clairity wrote: post #114
phkahler wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I like many others are deeply upset by leadership from both parties, at all levels of government. I'm sitting at home in Michigan where the governor has closed almost all businesses. Politicians bicker over weather governors or the president have the authority to reopen things. And yet there is no plan as far as I can see. No goals, no criteria to trigger next steps, nothing. Meanwhile the press just snipes at peo…

it's tough to have productive coordination when the president knows so little about civics and government. it's best to ignore the president in this case, especially since he constitutionally has very little say in a pandemic response. instead, focus on putting political pressure on your state and local politicians to come up with a concrete plan and timeline, as they're the ones who do hold power in this case.

I think this would be a very good advice in any other politically charged situation, that requires quick action. However, in the case of pandemic your own plan has to depend heavily on the worldwide plan.

If my state would manage to kill 100% of the virus within its borders by quarantine-like measures, and then reopened the economy and everything else before other states and countries do the same, we'd quickly get the spread back on track. So if there's no federal/worldwide cooperation on that coming from the top, local politicians must push up as hard as they can for a global plan to be made.

At the very least, there must be a plan per continent.

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

#188

Post by wpietri »

mchusma wrote: post #172
wpietri wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is what a real roadmap looks like Sorry, but what's your expertise in what real public health plans look like? And why are you criticizing a slide deck as if it were a carefully considered public health plan? If you want to talk about what you'd like to see, great. We all want things, and communications can always be better. But I don't understand why you're treating your preferences as overriding, especially…

Governor Newsom, the governor of California, is a man (source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom ). This slide deck was released as a part of his press conference today. If a female staff member created the slides I don't think that changes anything, and is a poor ad-hominum attack, as the governor has presented this as his plan. This issue (the issue of reopening) is not actually that much of a health discus…

The author, according to the metadata, is Dr Sonia Angell, MD MPH, currently director of the CA Department of Public Health: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/meet-the-director

Pointing out that you don't know the source is not an ad hominem, because you are apparently offering yourself as an expert as to what a good plan is here. You also don't appear to know the difference between medicine and public health. The latter, of course, is very much about the tradeoffs between medical and other societal factors.

So I'll ask again: given that you are presenting your opinions as more pertinent than the experts here, what's the expertise you're basing that on?

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

#189

Post by gnicholas »

rconti wrote: post #128
jshevek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as an argument for a county-by-county approach in which the specific circumstances of the county are taken into account.

When I turn on the news at night, I don't see the information for the county I intend to visit once it's deemed safe(er) to travel. I see the information for where I live.

If you’re going to travel to another county, you could check the website for that county to see their rules.

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

#190

Post by mchusma »

_vertigo wrote: post #142
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…

I don't really think you fully appreciate what how your "real plan" or your accompanying nitpicks would be received by the average citizen. The biggest pitfall, as has already been pointed out by another reply, is that it creates concrete expectations that the government will be held accountable for. Secondly, most of your nitpicks are great if you want to nerd out over the details of the epidemic, but most people ar…

Thank you for your reply. I don't understand the objection that this is locking government in. Every level of government keeps setting dates then changing them, so I don't see how changing a criteria for a level is worse.
Post reply on HN