Live data from Hacker News

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

gov.ca.gov

191–200 of 406 posts

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

#191

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 idea of inalienable rights is antithetical to this outlook.

There's no such thing. The idea that a right is inalienable is aspirational. While we should respect it, we should also respect that nothing is absolute and the best laid plans of mice and men and whatnot. We cannot allow perfect to become antithetical to good.

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

#192
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

San Miguel county in Colorado has found 0.5% of their population has confirmed antibodies after doing 1600+ tests (out of 8,000 people in the county). As another data point, the theory of this thing being widespread in the population seems far fetched to me.

Well, Gangelt showed 15% had antibodies (subject to, potentially fair criticisms re: methodology) so I think it's fair to say it varies by locale.

While I understand that many folks from Wuhan travel all over the United States, the non-stop options from Wuhan to NYC and, if I recall correctly, SFO and LAX meant that more opportunities existed for early spread than the middle of Colorado. In fact, I can't actually pinpoint a city in San Miguel County, Colorado -- can you? (https://goo.gl/maps/F7CJ3yfDKaf1gQjDA) I guess there's a post office in Egnar... Telluride maybe?

Certainly the sparse population created natural social distancing precluding its spread.

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

#193
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

The story leaked that morning. The SF Chronicle reported on it at ~11:30AM, explaining "County authorities were expected to announce the move at 1 p.m. and gave a draft of the order to media outlets to prepare. The Chronicle is reporting the story after a television station published the news early." https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1239620219376504832

I knew Breed jumped the gun and thought it a little showy, but I assumed she did it partly to get ahead of the rumor mill. Maybe her office coaxed the TV station (KTVU?) to leak it early?

Anyhow, this is all largely irrelevant. I purposefully didn't single out Breed in my previous comment. What's relevant is that these counties had clearly been working on this order long before the announcement, which means that for her part Breed would have known about it and approved of it days prior. Which is in stark contrast to mayors like De Blasio and most other politicians outside the West Coast and especially outside the Bay Area--Newsom was almost too late in ordering a state-wide shutdown, judging by how bad Los Angeles got. They were consistently days late, during a time when days and even hours mattered.

I'm not very concerned by Breed trying to capitalize on her decisions. What matters is that she has made decisions that could have easily resulted in intense blowback (and still might) while others sat around on their thumbs too afraid of the political costs. There's plenty to still criticize Breed for, but relatively speaking she deserves some praise. And that's basically how the Mission Local article lands, too.

EDIT: See also Breed's first tweet at 11:57AM, which I think comes before her press conference, though Youtube isn't showing the time of the video, just the date. https://twitter.com/LondonBreed/status/1239626809865416704 Speaking of which, it's highly annoying how the SF Chronicle and the Mercury News update their articles in ways that obscure the timeline of what was said and when.

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

#194

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.

There could be some limitations in sampling. Multiplex respiratory panels at Stanford that come up negative for everything... what does that patient look like?

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

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good question. If control measures are undertaken to "flatten the curve" down to the capacity of the medical system, we'd expect to see new infections per day and deaths per day level out, maybe decline a little, but not decline a lot. Which is what the actuals show for the areas worst off.[1] At some point, there's saturation, and "herd immunity". For this virus, that's somewhere in the 60%-80% range of the…

It seems like both the perception of and response to this pandemic are not reflective of reality. What am I getting wrong here? - Around 200 million Americans will eventually get it, barring extraordinary events (like a vaccine arriving in 6 months). We cannot change this. - Around 0.5% will die, overwhelmingly those who had a low remaining life expectancy to begin with. This is a much larger body count than most peo…

It’s not 0.5% it’s closer to 2%.

You don’t have a normal economy if people don’t want to go out in public or the supply chain is interrupted as workers get sick. A pandemic will harm the economy no matter what we do, these efforts, it is hoped, will reduce the impact while also saving lives and the hospital system.

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

#196
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…

Additionally, notice that the orange data points (actual hospitalizations) are significantly under the "With Intervention" plot. So why even include the slide? Clearly the assumptions behind the "With Intervention" plot do not match reality TODAY, let alone in a few weeks. Not a good sign if people are making actual decisions based on this.

The line is the average of high and low estimates. The issue we are dealing with exponential growth so 1/10th x to 10x makes it look like the estimate is wildly off even when it’s surprisingly accurate.

Further, these estimates are much older than the data so showing their accuracy is useful.

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

#197
post #160
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has the power to check temperatures, force people to use a contact tracing app, require masks etc.

It actually largely doesn't have that power. I mean, it does until challenged, and it could impose restrictions on entering government buildings -- but the government really doesn't have an unlimited authority to declare arbitrary restrictions on the right of people to peaceably assemble. Not legally, anyway.

> It actually largely doesn't have that power.

Yes it does. This is war.

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

#198

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 infectio…

Whatever number you arrive at is your concern. You want to shelter in place go for it. What I don't want is the government shutting down everything. Leave it to the individual.

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

#199
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Something weird happened in California, where 20% of their tests were coming back positive, then all the sudden 04/04/2020 they started seeing This is not surprising. When tests were scarce, tests would be rationed to those most suspected of infection.

Tests are still scarce.

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

#200
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly the assumptions behind the "With Intervention" plot do not match reality TODAY, let alone in a few weeks. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills with the way people are talking about this whole thing still being out of control, when data shows the situation is even better than the most optimistic models were predicting. And by that I mean, pretend I was on HN 3 weeks ago predicting 25K deaths in the USA by toda…

You're not crazy. It was very clear from the way the situation was handled even a month ago that CA and NY governors are not wasting time with this good crisis, and are using it for their political gain. The rampant fear mongering was used to overblow the severity of the situation and sell the idea of locking down hard before it's too late, completely disregarding the economy fallout, all the while projecting the ima…

Ugh. Why let green accounts post immediately?
Post reply on HN