Live data from Hacker News

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

gov.ca.gov

241–250 of 406 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t CA under lockdown? Only supposed to leave your apartment for groceries right?

They're not saying you can't return to your family, they're just saying not to congregate in large numbers. I've moved back from my apartment (Chicago) to the suburbs to stay with my parents until this lockdown ceases. Of course, we both started isolating two weeks before I came home, and they picked me up so I wouldn't have to take the train. Just use your head, don't do things that will risk spreading the disease.…

[deleted]

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

#242
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 This is not surprising. When tests were scarce, tests would be rationed to those most suspected of infection.

Tests are still scarce.

Are they scarce everywhere? I was under the impression that LA county, at least, could test everyone that was symptomatic.

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Nevada County, which apparently has a very low infection rate (34 cases, none in the last week) but if you open this county, what prevents folks from other countries from flooding in and bringing more infection? This county was previous a tourist mecca so it would be especially inviting. But any county that was open would be an appealing destination for the closed counties.

Nevada County is a particularly good example here of one of the failings of a county-by-county approach because Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital there isn't really equipped to deal with a large number of critical care patients, and neither are many other rural counties. It would take far fewer cases to incapacitate Nevada County's health care infrastructure than Placer County or others to the west.

> because Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital there isn't really equipped to deal with a large number of critical care patients

That makes me think its sterling example of why we need a county-by-county. Don't just base it on infection levels though, as you pointed out. Include hospital support, ppe levels, interconnectedness, etc.

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

#244
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

With an older population, a problematic medical system, and being caught totally unprepared, isn't Italy the worst case scenario? I don't think it would be representative of what's going to happen in other countries from here on out.

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

#245
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Singapore is often refer to as soft-authoritarian.

It's like choosing N.Korea as an example and asking why you should trust them with your civil liberties.

https://privacyinternational.org/sites/default/files/2017-12...

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

#246
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…

Also the hospital bed line that many draw are all based upon having medical staff for them. So does somewhat depend upon no staff shortages due to illness impacting capacity of hospital bed numbers.

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

#247
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.

This is ridiculous criticism. There are so many unknowns with this virus. We don’t know how many people have it, how fast it is spreading or what the mortality rate. Everything is a fairly rough estimate.

It turns out that social distancing is working better than expected, or the virus isn’t as contagious as expected, or slightly less severe than expected. That doesn’t mean the lockdown was the wrong thing to do, or that it isn’t still necessary. What it does mean is that we’ll be able to start easing restrictions as the hospitalizations continue to drop — and perhaps we can stop it completely with testing and contact tracing.

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

#248
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At least at the state level, states' general police powers have usually been interpreted to give pretty broad authority to enforce measures like quarantines and mandatory isolation if necessary to protect public health. There's a bit of recent case law from the 2014 Ebola quarantines: a few nurses who had had contact with a suspected case (but had no symptoms) were put under mandatory quarantine, and sued for unlawfu…

There is a distinction between quarantining someone who is sick for the duration of their illness and putting the entire population under indefinite detention and building a long-lasting deep surveillance operation with mandatory universal participation

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Around 200 million Americans will eventually get it, barring extraordinary events (like a vaccine arriving in 6 months). We cannot change this. "Significantly less than 200 million Americans catching it" is still on the table. "Herd immunity" is just the point at which the reproduction rate of the disease falls below 1 because the average infected person does not encounter anyone else to infect (because everyone el…

This is a great comment, thanks. So isn't there an argument in favor of infecting more people sooner in order to increase the immunity rate of the population, particularly if those people are at lower risk of complications for the disease? For example why not pursue a policy such as: kids can go to school unless they live with someone who is at risk (since we know that children are at very low risk for complications)…

Eh, it's kind of like the decision on how bags of groceries to carry from the car to the house at once -- it's faster the more you take, but the more you carry the more likely you are to drop them and the more catastrophic the accident becomes when it happens.

It's tricky to take large bites here because of the short doubling time compared to the relatively longer recovery time -- in the ~3 weeks it takes your currently-infected cohort to recover, your infected population could increase 100-fold if you aren't careful. Mistiming things -- misjudging how many people are currently infected -- by a couple of days can be difference between exposing 10% of your population to the risk and exposing 15%. There's a reason pandemics are often compared to forest fires.

This will get easier as time goes on, as the doubling period gets longer and longer.

Based on current estimates of how many people will die in the US, you can infer that we currently expect 5-10% of the population to be exposed in this first wave; I believe what widespread testing there has been in Italy leans towards about 10% of that population having been exposed there as well.

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

#250
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No war has been declared.

But in a way, you are right. We are in a war for our futures, and we are losing.

Post reply on HN