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

251–260 of 406 posts

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

#251

Post by tlb »

clairity wrote: post #108
hilbertseries wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LA county now requires anyone entering an essential business to wear a mask.

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.

I wear masks in public, even though I have no comorbidities, because of all the people I might subsequently spread it to if I got it. Remember that asymptomatic transmission for several days is common.

Putting on a mask takes a few seconds, so compared to all the suffering it might prevent, even at 0.01% probability, it's well worth it.

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

#252

Post by s1artibartfast »

esoterica wrote: post #218
ninetyfurr wrote: post #50

They should quit padding the numbers if they're so concerned about minimizing fatalities. A man gets hit by a bus and tests positive for Coronavirus, I don't care what the science has to say about it, that is not a Coronavirus death and you can't change my mind.

Do you think it's likely that 26,000 people happened to get hit by a bus right after getting diagnosed with the coronavirus? 4% of the patients diagnosed with coronavirus in the US have already died (and many more of the currently diagnosed patients are still sick and have not yet died but will in the future). It's wildly implausible that a meaningful fraction of 4% of that sample could have coincidentally died withi…

2.8 million Americans die in a normal year, or about 7,500/day.

The risk factors for normal causes of death are basically identical to those of covid-19 ( age, vascular disease, cancer, respiratory disease, ect). I think it is reasonable to wonder how many of the people who died from covid-19 were already loosing a battle with pre-existing condition.

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

#253

Post by tlb »

clairity wrote: post #167
impendia wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Substantial research contradicts your claims. See https://www.masks4all.co for links.

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

#254

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

marcinzm wrote: post #235
apatters wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The death rate is 0.5% IF there's really good medical treatment. If there isn't then not only does the death rate from the covid go up but so do death rates for every other condition requiring medical treatment. And not only during the pandemic but for a some time afterwards as the health system recovers. That's not counting those who survive but have some form of permanent damage. The way to avoid that is to at leas…

I'm just very skeptical of this kind of noble lie. If authorities are known to tell people what's convenient for them to believe rather than what's true, is anyone going to end up listening to them in the end?

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

#255

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

marcinzm wrote: post #240
apatters wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

>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). Similar to how we managed chickenpox before there was a vaccine. Because kids are the most likely to ignore even simple ways of preventing infection. Then you get exponential growth via kids and the health system implodes.

How does this square with Denmark, which is opening schools tomorrow? It's possible they're wrong, but they must at least have some reason to think what you're saying won't happen.

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

#256

Post by johnnyo »

apatters wrote: post #232
saalweachter wrote: post #211

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)…

Chicken pox was a steady state. It sucked that kids got it, but their parents and most adults were likely immune, so when they brought it home from school, it didn’t spread to parents.

But if you expose kids to COVID now, they will in turn expose their parents, who will expose their coworkers, etc, etc

I could see that being effective strategy if we didn’t have a vaccine in 30 years, but for now, most people are still susceptible.

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

#257

Post by glaugh »

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.

Whenever I see the IHME charts[1] (which are great) I think “I wish I could see the what the model predicted before today’s date so I can assess it.”

This shows laudable transparency, in my view.

(Also the model was directionally correct, it’s not like it was entirely the wrong shape.)

[1] https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/cali...

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

#258

Post by mikekij »

rriepe wrote: post #231
Animats wrote: post #129

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…

The "curve" in "flatten the curve" is an epidemic curve, not a Bell curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemic_curve

Fair. But the curves on the document referenced above are not epidemic curves. They’re unbounded exponential growth curves. My criticism of the report stands.

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

#259

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

adelHBN wrote: post #207
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The county health officials would presumably coordinate with each other, as San Francisco and San Mateo are already doing.

But to your point, San Mateo is not closing off 280 and 101 to stop S.F. traffic. And the Governor has issued a stay-at-home policy to the San Francisco Bay Area, not just one or two cities. So that's why I think area-wide policies work better than county-by-county policies. We could have San Diego area ban and policy, L.A./OC/San Bernardino, Santa Barbara/Ventura/San Louis Obispo... you get the picture.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. (And presumably the Bay Area is going to keep moving in lockstep as it has been.) It'd just be silly if Tuolumne County had to stay sheltering in place because of conditions in the LA area or something.

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

#260

Post by mikekij »

joe_the_user wrote: post #150
mikekij wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you remove the black, total curve, the green new case curve is visible but it seems to be going up and down fairly inconclusively." The best fit line of new cases after 4/4 is a linear function with a definitively negative slope. It is conclusively not a function that contributes to the upward, concave blue line on the state's graph.

Who cares what the best fit is. There is simply not enough data. You're talking twelves data points with considerable variation. Using statistic doesn't turn muddy and ambiguous data into a clear signal magically.

My point is that there is no extrapolation of the data we’ve seen to date that yields the blue line on their graph.
Post reply on HN