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

271–280 of 406 posts

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

#271

Post by arcticbull »

vanniv wrote: post #250
Gibbon1 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Now you're right in a way. We're in a war for our futures against an opponent that won't do any damage to the vast majority of the population and will disproportionately negatively affect a small slice. That small slice must be protected and the rest of us need to venture out of our burrows.

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

#272

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

viklove wrote: post #203
sergiotapia wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And when 3-5 million people die over the course of a year you won't blame the government?

Those numbers are unrealistically high, but even so I wouldn't blame the government for them. If Wuhan hadn't set a bad example, I doubt anyone would have even considered universal house arrest as an option in the government's toolkit.

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

#273

Post by aianus »

enraged_camel wrote: post #265
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.

> Canada is giving every Canadian $2,000 every month.

No they're not, if you worked even one hour, you don't qualify for any of the $2,000. Your income must be zero to qualify for that program.

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

#274

Post by throwawaysea »

digitaltrees wrote: post #195
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…

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.

No, 2% is the case fatality rate. The true overall mortality is far lower. Germany did a randomized test recently of a town and calculated that 2% of the population is actively infected, 14% possess antibodies indicative of a current/prior infection, and overall 15% have been infected at some point. Once this broader testing was completed, the overal mortality was found to only be 0.37%. For comparison, a typical flu season is 0.1%.

https://www.tagesschau.de/regional/nordrheinwestfalen/corona...

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

#275

Post by jshevek »

joe_the_user wrote: post #261
jshevek wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand your argument. Are you thinking that there will be two kinds kinds of counties at each point in time, those "deemed safe" and those "deemed unsafe"? If so, that would explain my confusion. I imagine that each county would be advised to implement one of a small number of strategies, in consideration of the peculiarities of that county, its economy, its normal levels of travel, its immediate neighbors, and the effect they are likely to have on their state (and even the nation) as a whole.

Are you thinking of the people who would be willing to drive far distances simply to, for example, go out to eat? I would assume that this analysis would be included. Close proximity to a large population that's on lockdown is, in my opinion, a reason to keep the lockdown in a county, even if that county doesn't yet have many cases. But the next county over might or might not open up. Sure, people near the border from the second county will just go into that third county, and that's fine - as long as there aren't too many people coming from the first county.

Politicians and pundits simplify and say stupid things, when taken literally, but when it really comes down to it no one is really suggesting that the state of affairs within a county be the sole determining factor for the degree and form of economic activity which will be permitted. We have to look at the larger region. But once we look at the larger region, it will probably make perfect sense to completely lift the shutdown in some counties (esp. in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, etc) while keeping a strong shutdown in other places.

Edit: I assume that we will also be looking at individual industries independently. Can the companies in a certain industry in a certain region reliably commit to following strong anti-COVID practices? If so, we might let them open up, while other industries are not allowed to. We don't have the time to create certification bodies or licensing departments to handle these specifics, so politicians will just have to make the best decisions they can.

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

#277

Post by JamisonM »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #254
marcinzm wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is not a noble lie to tell people it won't be ok if it really won't be ok.

Really, if every jurisdiction in the world overwhelms their hospital capacity it won't be ok.

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

#278

Post by war1025 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #265
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.

Because you probably want to eat. And you probably want the electricity and internet to stay on. And you probably want things to continue to be available. All of those require the economy to be functioning.

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

#279

Post by JamisonM »

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)…

""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?""

Only if you would like to see the hospitals overwhelmed with cases that don't result in fatalities but kill lots of other people and also kill people with underlying conditions that would otherwise live full and productive lives.

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

#280

Post by WWLink »

jdminhbg wrote: post #216
charlesju wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why your solution is not good is because it pigeon holes the government into expectations. The government doesn't have a crystal ball as to how this all plays out, they need to have the flexibility to change how they want to respond to each situation without having to defend an ultimatum. For example, even in your own example here are several situations you didn't account: -- The availability of tests for…

> 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. That’s great, but right up until the shutdown, De Blasio and other NYC officials were encouraging New Yorkers to go out and su…

This is true. Speaking from California here, several Bay Area counties were the first I knew of. NYC started doing shelter-in-place like 3 weeks later.
Post reply on HN