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

221–230 of 406 posts

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

#221

Post by jdminhbg »

ravenstine wrote: post #135
bsder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 not…

That’s a bit of a myth. Sweat also reacts with chlorine to create chloramine, so it doesn’t actually require any urine. Cf. https://www.premierhealth.com/your-health/articles/women-wis...

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

#222

Post by khuey »

apatters wrote: post #214
digitaltrees wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your source for 2%? A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] I have seen a number of studies putting the case fatality rate at 2-3%, but this number cannot be generalized to the entire population because current testing is skewed toward the most serious cases. [2] Long-term mortality in the total population may look something like 0.66% * 0.7 assuming…

The CFR in Italy is nearly 13%. Even if you make incredibly generous assumptions that there are no unreported deaths and they're only catching 10% of cases that still leaves the infection fatality rate at twice the number you propose

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

#223

Post by nomel »

wtvanhest wrote: post #62
archgoon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should infections follow a bell curve? Shouldn't it be the derivative of a the logistic curve, which should be approximately exponential on both ends. I don't see how a quadratic should show up in the exponent; either mathematically or epidemiologically.

Does anyone have the ability to walk through these explanations in a little more detail. I'm having trouble understanding why infections would be a bell curve, or derivative of a log curve.

Here's a neat video by 3Blue1Brown that shows some simple simulations of an epidemic, and give a good visualization of the bell curve.

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

#224

Post by ISL »

Ninjak8051 wrote: post #53
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…

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.

I think the point of the plot is to suggest that intervention efforts are being quite successful relative to expectations at the time the "With Intervention" model was generated.

The brighter dashed line is there to show what happens if intervention is disabled completely.

I really like that the milestones are placed as questions, rather than dates. It is the right way to message the unknown.

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

#225

Post by jshevek »

gnicholas wrote: post #189
rconti wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, we already have to do this at the state level, at the moment. It's in the best interest of a region's government (whether county or state) to make sure the rest of the country is aware of their rules, so they don't have people showing up with incompatible expectations.

I don't imagine there will a increased multiplicity of confusing rulesets beyond what we have now, either. Many counties will simply adhere to some standard recommendation from their state, and the rest will copy one of a small number of recommended levels along a spectrum of openness.

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

#226

Post by arcticbull »

dnautics wrote: post #210
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.

> Largely, it's intent that matters I'm sure Earl Warren said that to himself when he locked up the Japanese Americans during WWII.

Everything comes in shades of grey, and that's a particularly dark one. That doesn't mean small concessions aren't the right thing from time to time. In the same way while Americans are allowed to bear arms they aren't allowed to bear nuclear arms. I doubt you'll find a single person in favor of unrestricted domestic nuclear proliferation in the name of the second amendment.

Especially when the country isn't even sure about bump stocks.

How about we address such things on a case by case basis?

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

#227

Post by jdminhbg »

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.

14% of women giving birth in NYC test positive; 86% asymptomatic. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316

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

#228

Post by saalweachter »

apatters wrote: post #214
digitaltrees wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your source for 2%? A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] I have seen a number of studies putting the case fatality rate at 2-3%, but this number cannot be generalized to the entire population because current testing is skewed toward the most serious cases. [2] Long-term mortality in the total population may look something like 0.66% * 0.7 assuming…

I use the 0.66% number myself when estimating things, but it's worth noting that that is that papers best-guess estimated infection fatality rate for China, based on its demographics.

The paper has an overall estimate of the infection fatality rate for all ages of 0.2-1.6%.

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

#229

Post by zaidf »

dnautics wrote: post #219
zaidf wrote: post #206

For everyone who has tracked California’s response over the past month (the good and the bad), the #1 problem is obvious: a) California’s testing and reporting infrastructure is absolutely abysmal, arguably the worst in the country b) there are very few signs that it will improve anytime soon California leaders haven’t had to confront this publicly because much of the last one month had been focused almost exclusivel…

I would argue that reducing the rate of deaths is the #1 problem, followed by reducing the rate of infections, followed by being able to determine the rate of infections. So, unless you believe california results are 10x off, based on empirical results and your assertion that the testing and reporting infrastructure is "the worst", the state of california has at least done a fair job of managing its effort in the fac…

I believe California has done an amazing job so far on the whole; “fair” would be a gross understatement. So I think we are in agreement there.

That said, I do think as new casualties and hospitalizations are on the decline, test reporting and infrastructure matters disproportionately more for the next phase (planning for gradual reopening) and phases after.

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

#230

Post by aodin »

arcticbull wrote: post #192
enjo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pin…

San Miguel County is home to Telluride ski resort, an international destination with about half a million visits per year [1]

[1] https://www.telluridenews.com/news/article_1547199f-46bc-547...

Post reply on HN