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

281–290 of 406 posts

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

#281

Post by throwawaysea »

There is data suggesting that the current number of recognized infections is just 6% of the total infection count. This also means that case fatality rates are vastly overstated, since the rate would drop if we had enough testing to recognize the true total case count: https://reason.com/2020/04/12/official-covid-19-numbers-repr...

A new antibody study in LA may give us better numbers: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-10/coronavi...

My one hope is that the leaders of these states (CA OR WA) do not follow the “noble lie” strategy adopted by the WHO and others to manipulate the population. Insofar as coercive orders are tolerated at all, they must be accompanied by truthful metrics, believable goalposts, and a practical mindset that doesn’t aim for perfect outcomes.

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

#282

Post by clairity »

tlb wrote: post #251
clairity wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

no one is arguing that you disregard others, especially those who have comorbidities, only that a mask adds negligible risk reduction outside, above and beyond the natural physical distancing of strolling down the sidewalk.

risks differ with context.

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

#283

Post by WWLink »

war1025 wrote: post #278
enraged_camel wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

I'll claim the economy can function just fine with all the bullshit middle management and software engineers working from home. Let the essential people do their essential jobs at lower risk of catching the virus - and with less micromanagement.

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

#284

Post by objectivetruth »

sergiotapia wrote: post #140
gdulli wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens when you, with your good judgement, decide to protect yourself and stay home, and then you have an unrelated treatable condition but die because no hospital could take you because they're all busy dealing with all the Coronavirus patients who were left to their good judgement and didn't stay home?

1. Your hypothetical isn't a possibility. The numbers do not reflect that possibility, not even close. 2. Even if it were a possibility, it's that vs. shutting down peoples lives for a very long time. "Is your life worth my liberty?" - that's something we fundamentally disagree on.

If you have proof that it's impossible for the US healthcare system to be overloaded and shut down during a pandemic, you should publish! NEJM, Lancet, Journal of Infectious Diseases: I know there are a LOT of doctors and public health officials who'd love to see your evidence!

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

#285

Post by csdreamer7 »

gizmo686 wrote: post #104
mlindner wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The casualty numbers are quite accurate. The US records every cause of death.

The US cannot record data it doesn't have. Covid is only the cause of death if the deceased had Covid; and we cannot know that unless we can test them. In aggragate, we can sidestep this issue by looking at excess death, but that is non-trivial (particuarly because the behavioural changes mean that we would expect other causes of death to differ in unknown ways). At the end of this, I would expect to get fairly accur…

Indeed, if you look at CDC's cause of death numbers you will see they only list till 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/lcod/

At least that is what I could find. I was curious to see if I could find some month to month chart on all deaths for March, February, and January. I could not find one.

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

#286

Post by kitotik »

mayneack wrote: post #242
rhizome wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tests are still scarce.

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

No, they have been available to only “seniors and high risk individuals”.

Literally just today Mayor Garcetti announced testing for everyone is available.

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

#287

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

JamisonM wrote: post #277
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, it'd be wrong to tell people it's okay. It's not okay, a lot of people are going to die, and even more people would have died if we didn't take costly measures to stop it. This has been and will be the worst experience of a lot of people's lives, and it'd just be a lie in another direction to pretend that's not so.

What seems to be a noble lie is the apocalyptic mindset, where the coronavirus is literally the only thing that matters and we must never ask if a particular mitigation is worth the cost. Many authority figures are promoting this idea, even though they clearly don't believe it themselves and couldn't formulate effective policy if they did.

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

#288

Post by DuskStar »

cameldrv wrote: post #270
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…

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.

I was under the impression that NYC had a confirmed infection rate of ~1%. Have they really had a tenth of confirmed cases die already?

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

#289

Post by war1025 »

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?

Something I thought about the other day that I think puts some of this in perspective:

The population of the US is ~300 million. The average lifespan is ~80 years.

We have a growing population, but supposing we had a stable population, that would require a bit more than 3 million people to die each year.

Basically my point is, in a stable situation, that order of people will already be dying yearly.

I don't know what the actual numbers are for the county, but basically since people live less than 100 years, if we had a stable population (which at some point we'll need to return to), then roughly 1% of the population needs to die every year.

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

#290

Post by aylmao »

war1025 wrote: post #278
enraged_camel wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

All those need the supply lines and critical infrastructure to stay functioning, which they can be even if the rest of the "economy" isn't.

What's needed is money for households to pay for them, which is the biggest concern at the moment, but which can technically be solved by giving households a cheque.

Post reply on HN