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

261–270 of 406 posts

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

#261

Post by joe_the_user »

jshevek wrote: post #91
joe_the_user wrote: post #25

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.

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

Why?

I don't see why any "deemed safe" county wouldn't be overrun by visitors from unsafe counties, making the county unsafe again. Maybe you could find a county so remote it wouldn't matter but whether those extremely isolated places are opened up now or not probably doesn't matter either way. I doubt they're much effected by this situation regardless.

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

#262

Post by Gibbon1 »

enjo wrote: post #175
riazrizvi wrote: post #139

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.

I like how a factual point that goes against HN wishful thinking gets downvoted.

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

#263

Post by jmckib »

ABeeSea wrote: post #5
mdorazio wrote: post #3

Am I missing something? I don't see any kind of roadmap in here - it's just 6 generic talking points without any actual plan or timeline.

He said during the press conference that exact dates might be available in two-four weeks. He wants to see a further reduction in hospitalizations, an increase in testing, and a supply chain for PPE before committing to reopening dates.

Is there a video of the press conference somewhere? It's hard to make sense of these slides without any context.

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

#264

Post by orangecat »

ajross wrote: post #33
timr wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different regions have dramatically different population densities, and don't necessarily need shelter-in-place rules. In NYC, shelter-in-place is probably the only feasible way to reduce social interactions when case-count is exploding, but in Boise, where people mostly live in detached housing and drive cars and cases are measured in the hundreds, it might be sufficient to eliminate large gatherings and shut down r…

> don't necessarily need shelter-in-place rules Is there a cite for that? Because that's not the way the data looks. Everywhere was growing with roughly the same exponent before lockdown. The numbers were bigger in NY because it grew longer pre-detection, but there's no reason to believe that everywhere else was any different. Really this disease's growth constant looks shockingly consistent almost everywhere in the…

Edit to show the point better: Go here (easily the best visualization site, FWIW), scroll to the bottom where you can see a log chart of per-capita infection rates normalized to a single "start time" metric, and compare the Idaho chart with the New York one.

Number of cases is largely a proxy for how many tests are being done (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/coronavirus-case-counts...). Looking at deaths is more accurate, and that shows Idaho (and all other states) well below New York.

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

#265

Post by enraged_camel »

yodsanklai wrote: post #112

I would cynically summarize this as: lockdown is economically unsustainable. We need to go back to work. Let's hope we can control the epidemics this time better than before the lockdown. We may have new tools this time (contact tracing, masks, test). But we're not really sure they'll work. It's the exact same situation in France where we're planning to go out of lockdown in 4 weeks. It seems unclear that we'll have…

>>I would cynically summarize this as: lockdown is economically unsustainable. We need to go back to work.

Why? Canada is giving every Canadian $2,000 every month. Why can't the US do the same while we let this thing subside fully?

Instead we're bailing out corporations, while giving everyone a one-time $1,200 check, while expanding unemployment checks by merely $600.

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

#266

Post by aianus »

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…

The strain that is widespread in New York is the European strain: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/new-york-coronavi...

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

#267

Post by rriepe »

mikekij wrote: post #258
rriepe wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it was a great post. Just adding that note.

The exponential curves are somewhat useful early in an outbreak. It's confusing right now because some places are still "early" and some places are way past the point where those curves are descriptive. So they won't describe NYC at all but they're still somewhat working nationally.

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

#268

Post by khuey »

apatters wrote: post #244
khuey wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know where this meme came from that Italy has a "problematic medical system" but that's certainly not true in Lombardy.

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

#269

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

macintux wrote: post #179
0xy wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, and it's worth noting that the death rate from economic damage could be significantly higher than the death rate from coronavirus. For each 1% increase in unemployment, several thousand people die. Unemployment substantially increases the risk of mortality.

Let’s say the unemployment jumps to 30%, which is conceivable, but awful. That would mean 200-300k people die from increased unemployment. Terrible. The new virus’s worst case is more along the lines of 2-3 million, and at that point we’re probably in health care meltdown which would make it much worse than even those staggering numbers. So yes, we don’t want to shut down the economy for 6 months, but it’s critical t…

We can pay people to stay alive in the short term. In the long term, the economy is what allows the average American to live better than the average Ghanaian. 6 months of an essentials only economy - a subsistence economy, it's typically called - would do incredible and irreparable damage.

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

#270

Post by cameldrv »

apatters wrote: post #180
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…

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…

Based on Italian serological and all cause mortality data I have seen, the death toll would more likely be about 1.4%. 0.5 IMO is quite optimistic. 0.1% of New York's population has already died.

This also discounts the unknown possibility of disability, reinfection, and limited time immunity.

Post reply on HN