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

301–310 of 406 posts

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

#301

Post by icelancer »

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.

It notably does not present any sort of figures, expectations, statistics, or mathematics. No one wants to take responsibility. They'd rather have nebulous goalposts they can shift whenever they like. Hell, it's worked so far in convincing people mathematical models don't need to be accurate anymore - you have people in the streets defending embarrassingly poor epidemiological models.

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

#302

Post by nradov »

riazrizvi wrote: post #101
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…

This plan also ignores the question of the majority of people who have likely been infected with no symptoms that could be identified with widespread Serology/Antibody tests. I find it alarming that this plan ignores that, is the governor priming is for population wide vaccination that is likely to be unnecessary? If we confirm widespread recovery and immunity then larger numbers of people can get back to life as usu…

No one is priming for vaccination because a vaccine doesn't exist yet and we don't even have a reliable schedule estimate for one.

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

#303

Post by icelancer »

mdorazio wrote: post #120
wbl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would there be? If something goes really wrong in one of those pushing it off a goal is going to be a problem.

Because without those things it's not a real plan. Anyone can say "we'll change policies when things get better". Defining what "better" means is the actual challenge and exactly what people as a whole are looking for.

They'd have to take responsibility for real metrics and a way to measure their performance. That's not going to happen at the government level.

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

#304

Post by aylmao »

sergiotapia wrote: post #198
dsjoerg wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair questions. What fatality rate are you expecting for not-at-risk people? Is that risk of death acceptable to you? What risk of death should I expect, I'm a healthy 47 year old male. Is it 0.1% or 0.01%? The difference between those two matters to me and the research isn't clear yet as far as I can tell. By doing a bunch of the steps implied in the document my chance of surviving is better, by keeping the infectio…

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.

This interesting to think about, but truth is a lot of at-risk people still need to be out there. Take all the workers for critical infrastructure, businesses, hospitals, etc. They need "the outside" to be as clean as possible too.

Consider an emergency, where someone who wants to shelter needs to go somewhere (say, the hospital, airport, etc), or receive someone at their house (say a doctor, technician, etc). Or consider groceries and other needs that come from the outside but are brought to people sheltering. You want "the outside" to be as clean as possible in those cases too.

Perfect isolation from the outside world isn't possible, but with a general shelter-in-place, there's fewer chances that "the outside" is virulent. Very similar to herd-immunity and vaccines.

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

#305

Post by mr_spothawk »

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…

> The death rate is 0.5%

You can't know that without testing the whole population, or at least getting some controls.

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

#306

Post by kitotik »

mchusma wrote: post #67

A real plan would look like this https://imgur.com/spemOeG specifying the levels of restrictions and the metrics we will use to track the metrics. This allows people to understand what to expect the best possible. We already have huge uncertainty, we don't need to add uncertainty of government response on top of uncertainty of the virus. I think there is huge room to debate the numbers and what goes in what level, bu…

It seems fairly obvious this is not, nor was it intended to be, a “plan”.

This “Roadmap” was likely rushed out as part of a coordinated political response to threats made by the POTUS to override state decisions.

It was framed in the local press even before it was announced that the governor would be discussing which metrics the state would be looking at to determine when and how to start opening things back up.

It was shocking/hilarious/predictable to see the headlines streaming out even before Newsoms press conference was over that “California releases plan to reopen economy”.

If I was expecting a plan, and then opened this PDF, I would want to rip it to shreds as well.

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

#307

Post by wjossey »

glaugh wrote: post #257
Ninjak8051 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The IHME model is proving to be wildly inaccurate on the downslope due to bad data coming out China. Their projections will continue to creep up in terms of deaths over the next few weeks because the predicted drop offs won’t be happening, sad to say.

If you want to see examples, check out their predictions on Italy. Their figures have been underestimating by over 50%, and the gaps will widen each day over the upcoming week. Heck, the ranges for the last few days have been outside their confidence interval.

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

#308

Post by mchusma »

pfranz wrote: post #220
mchusma wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for chiming in. As I said in another thread I think at least this is the kind of framework for a discussion. Want to add more columns? Great. Want to double a number or halve a number, great. I personally think there is zero downside to publishing the numeric targets. Of you get more data in to change them, just change them (it's at least better than now where they have dates that they just keep changing). I d…

What was touched on in the reply, things like the amount and distribution of testing, the compliance and effectiveness of measures like wearing masks, and other information and treatments could change the criteria marked in green--which means they'd have to be revised publicly causing confusion. Kept internal they can revise it as things change and just announce Level changes publicly. All of those numbers in green h…

Thanks for replying! I agree I would like to see better numbers. However, I don't think that things like mask compliance would change the criteria marked in green, rather it would change the actual tracked metrics and require another lockdown.

While I am highly confident I didn't get everything right, I did account for the testing angle because I think that while tests are coming in on average (something like 7 days) very high positive, it is a very good sign that test quantity is wildly off. That is why I personally look at that metric. If 95% of tests are coming back negative (assuming good tests), that is a sign testing is going well. If 40% are positive, we aren't testing enough and should be conservative.

If our testing goes up which dramatically shoots up cases, even though its is a good thing I think its prudent to potentially escalate measures to be sure.

It should only be when everything is at least as good as a certain level should things decline. So for example if there are 1000 new cases in a week in california, with 2% growth rate, but 25% positive tests for some reason, then lock it down again (this is a very made up example).

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

#309

Post by girvo »

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.

You pretty much just described the US.

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

#310

Post by jariel »

archgoon wrote: post #51
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…

Why should infections follow a bell curve? Shouldn't it be the derivative of a the logistic curve, which should be approximately exponential on both ends. I don't see how a quadratic should show up in the exponent; either mathematically or epidemiologically.

It won't follow a 'bell curve' but the curve will 'look like a bell curve'.
Post reply on HN