311–320 of 406 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not too sure reinfection is as important mathematically as some think when you realize the goal will be to operate below a threshold of cases, not eliminate covid entirely.
It just takes one super spreader to reinfect a population, especially without herd immunity or vaccinations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not crazy. It was very clear from the way the situation was handled even a month ago that CA and NY governors are not wasting time with this good crisis, and are using it for their political gain. The rampant fear mongering was used to overblow the severity of the situation and sell the idea of locking down hard before it's too late, completely disregarding the economy fallout, all the while projecting the ima…
Ugh. Why let green accounts post immediately?
There should be a flag that hides new users by default... but consider carefully if you really want to be that person that makes use of such a feature lol
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…
Just one example, tests of pregnant women coming into labor in New York show that 1/6 of them are positive for nCov, but 85% are asymptomatic or presymptomatic. (https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1249836446569181186)
Another example, Denmark is finding potentially as high as 30-80x undercounting of cases, which would bring the fatality rate down to 0.1-0.2% (like a bad flu season) [https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/fxk917/covid19_in_...]
I've seen a few more of these data points coming out, and nothing is 100% conclusive, all the new data points are showing that it's less bad than mainstream thinking suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your source for 2%? A recent study which was featured on Hacker News estimated the infection fatality rate at 0.66%. [1] I have seen a number of studies putting the case fatality rate at 2-3%, but this number cannot be generalized to the entire population because current testing is skewed toward the most serious cases. [2] Long-term mortality in the total population may look something like 0.66% * 0.7 assuming…
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
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/CoronavirusUK/comments/fxgk8q/early...
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…
I don't really understand your comment. This is more of a "vision" doc that sets a framework and principles on what the plan will look like. The next iteration will be a more detailed plan. It is fairly typical of tech product work, where you create your vision statement and then create a more detailed plan
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 w…
And Newsom's twitter seems to really allude to it being "like a plan" with tweets about this like: "@GavinNewsom lays out parameters and tools needed before the state modifies California’s statewide stay-at-home orders" https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1250136291347324928?s=...
and they "announced a shared vision" https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1250212300147101697?s=....
A bunch of "parameters", "indicators", "vision", and "roadmap" to describe this one thing, means most people are going to expect something plan-like.
Was this thing rushed out? Probably. But why? This is literally the most important thing that Newsom could have been working on for the last 3 weeks. He pre-announced this yesterday, he could literally have had his whole team work on nothing else.
I mean if I had to make one of the top 10 most important announcements of my life tomorrow, I would really make sure it was good.
But to be fair, and I think this was at least part of your point, maybe it is exactly what he wanted. This is a political document, not really meant for California citizens to understand what the goal of the state is, what measures will be taken, and what kinds of numbers will be looking at to make decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
Well, I think we agree it would be a crap "plan". However I think for most people "California’s Roadmap to Modify the Stay-at-Home Order" is basically something like a plan. And Newsom's twitter seems to really allude to it being "like a plan" with tweets about this like: "@GavinNewsom lays out parameters and tools needed before the state modifies California’s statewide stay-at-home orders" https://twitter.com/CAgove…
If I draw out a map to Disneyland, even going as far to include which freeway exits to take, or maybe even going further as to plot out a few stops for gas, this still says nothing about when I will actually start the trip, how fast I’m going to drive, how much coffee I’m going to drink beforehand and how many bathroom breaks that will require, how many flat tires I’m going to get, how many times I’ll get rear ended by another driver who is playing with their phone, or how many times I will get pulled over by the cops on the way.
Some of that information is impossible to know, and some of that information has a low ROI in planning further.
> This is a political document
I feel strongly this is the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
No. Currently >200k confirmed, NY population is 18.8M. 0.05% of the population has died.
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.
> Clearly the assumptions behind the "With Intervention" plot do not match reality TODAY, let alone in a few weeks. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills with the way people are talking about this whole thing still being out of control, when data shows the situation is even better than the most optimistic models were predicting. And by that I mean, pretend I was on HN 3 weeks ago predicting 25K deaths in the USA by toda…
A week ago, I remember reading how the Bay Area was bracing for a bracing for a surge and it was the calm before the storm. The Santa Clara county covid-19 dashboard told a different story: day-over-day, new cases were roughly the same for the past two weeks. 2+ weeks into the lockdown, there was obviously no surge coming.
https://i.imgur.com/LrFZj3S.png
Looking at that chart on the April 7th, nothing pointed to a surge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
