Live data from Hacker News

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

gov.ca.gov

381–390 of 406 posts

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

#381
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it amazing that an absolutely massive privacy invasion that is called contact tracing is already accepted as _inevitable_ if we are ever to be allowed to step out of our homes? Talk about cynicism.

Contact tracing does not need to be a privacy invasion - the Apple/Google implementation seems very well thought out. https://ncase.me/contact-tracing

This is what the current plan says. Once implemented, the implementation can always be tweaked. In fact it can be tweaked in the next deploy coming a minute after the first.

Do you _really_ trust Apple and Google? I'm sorry but I don't.

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

#382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Covid-19 spreads extremely fast in unprepared populations. It only takes one unaware person to infect hundreds. Check out what happened in South Korea where they had the problem contained until one woman decided to go to church.

The woman went to a very large church, with over 1,000 people in the room. Such large gatherings won't be allowed for a while.

Churches are usually exempt from the shelter in place rules. Thankfully most are still observing the rules, but it's not because the government is forcing them to.

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

#383

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?

Because it does not make sense to introduce delays to stiffle discussion. Throw-away accounts are used to say things one does not want associated with "main" account; in my case the "main" account is easily doxxable and I knew the things I wanted to say are not going to be popular. I don't care if site mods have access to the logs and can use IP address to add 2 and 2; I just don't want that post above to be associated with my real name forever, via simple google search. I'll have to look for a new job soon, if layoffs continue at the present pace.

I would be happy to have this discussion face to face without having to hide behind an anonymous account but the rules for in-person debates do not apply on the Internet forums.

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

#384
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have evidence that risk reduction outside is very small? I haven't seen any, and I think it would be nearly impossible to collect such evidence. A plausible rule of thumb seems to be: if you could smell someone's cigarette smoke, you could inhale their viruses. I certainly smell smoke from smokers I pass on the street.

there are no studies done, because, as you note, it would be difficult and costly, and it's a simpler (and more easily followable) message to tell people to wear masks all the time.

but here's some additional intuition:

1. it's true that virus particles are roughly the same size as smoke particles, but infected people exhale virus "pucks" that are agglomerations of multiple viruses and water, leading them to fall while smoke floats (giving us the 3-6 foot rule, per prior coronavirus studies).

2. a single virus particle in the air without water could float around but is overwhelmingly likely to fall apart quickly. the air doesn't provide the countervailing forces to keep it together, and the bombardment of energies from all around also pull it apart.

3. the fact that a homemade mask allows smoke right through but filters out some portion of the virus pucks (as per your prior link) is evidence in itself of the differential affinities of smoke and virus pucks.

but let's face it, most people wearing masks (outside) do it because they think it's protecting them from the filthy other people. however, if you're sick, all you're doing is concentrating the virus pucks in one place right in front of a face we'll each touch 30 times an hour. no lay person consistently observes the contamination rules that hospital personnel do, especially when infection rates are <0.1% and failure to do so has no obvious downsides. masks could in fact be more dangerous because of a false sense of security.

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

#385
post #222

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

This published scientific article shows you why the CFR in Italy is so high -- and why it doesn't apply to the general population: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763667

Takeaways: Old population, Pre-existing conditions, Skewed testing

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

#386
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I feel like I’m taking crazy pills with the way people are talking about this whole thing still being out of control 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 obv…

In mid-March we were told that we are "10 days behind Italy" and shelter-in-place is not to stop the spread (already too late for that), but to give hospitals a bit of a breather before the surge of critical cases and the Death Wave that follows. That was the justification for such extraordinary measures as a state-wide lockdown.

It's mid-April now. Where is the Death Wave? Either this virus is much less infectuous than it was touted, or much less deadly. Or both.

Sweden never locked down. Denmark is opening up after a lockdown. Italy that was touted as the prime example of hell on earth, had ~21,000 people died by official count. Even if it was undercounted by 50%, that's roughly 40,000 people, mostly elders on their last breath, out of country of 60 mln. And that's the worst case so far, in the world of 7 billion people.

Disregard all that, we're still being told daily that it's "war zone", the zombie apocalypse is just around the corner, etc. Only Big Brother like surveillance is going to save us. The lockdown is not an extraordinary measure anymore, it was an absolutely necessary first step, and now we have to take it further. Much further.

I wonder what it felt like for people in 1932 Germany.

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

#387
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New York City's population is around 8.5 M, and more then 10,000 people there have died from from the virus so far ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/nyregion/new-york-coronav... ). That puts the toll over 0.1 %.

I cited the correct, current numbers for the entire state. You’re citing numbers released by the city where they haven’t confirmed cases, so it doesn’t answer the OP’s question.

Can you cite them, rather than saying that you cited them?

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

#388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like I’m taking crazy pills with the way people are talking about this whole thing still being out of control 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 obv…

In mid-March we were told that we are "10 days behind Italy" and shelter-in-place is not to stop the spread (already too late for that), but to give hospitals a bit of a breather before the surge of critical cases and the Death Wave that follows. That was the justification for such extraordinary measures as a state-wide lockdown. It's mid-April now. Where is the Death Wave? Either this virus is much less infectuous t…

Sweden didnt lock down and as a result has around TEN TIMES more deaths than its neighbours, and the death toll is raising by hundreds per day, when its hovering around 10 with Finland and Norway. I don't think you want to give Sweden as a good example.

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

#389
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's folly but I'm trying to follow the logic here. Newsom and Cuomo, who won their offices fairly easily in their respective elections, seized on a plan to drastically hurt the economies of their respective states. Because, being the ones who took charge of the situation, that would gain some intangible leadership points that would increase their chances of winning their next elections despite the inevitable…

Not sure if it is folly for me to try and answer here (no idea if my reply is going to be visible). Thank you for trying to listen anyway. There is no need to look for malice when there are simpler explanations. No, I do not think Newsom and Cuomo were actively trying to hurt their states' economies; what I said is that they are using the present crisis to advance their political goals _disregarding_ economic fallout…

I think again you are misunderstanding some severe things. Daily cases are flatlining now yes, but what happens if we open things up again? Why do you think we won't go down an expontential growth track just like before the lockdown?

You're literally saying "hey its not that bad, look at how good the numbers are while we are all staying home! Oh btw, can we stop staying at home?" Do you not see the inconsistency there?

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

#390
post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if it is folly for me to try and answer here (no idea if my reply is going to be visible). Thank you for trying to listen anyway. There is no need to look for malice when there are simpler explanations. No, I do not think Newsom and Cuomo were actively trying to hurt their states' economies; what I said is that they are using the present crisis to advance their political goals _disregarding_ economic fallout…

I think again you are misunderstanding some severe things. Daily cases are flatlining now yes, but what happens if we open things up again? Why do you think we won't go down an expontential growth track just like before the lockdown? You're literally saying "hey its not that bad, look at how good the numbers are while we are all staying home! Oh btw, can we stop staying at home?" Do you not see the inconsistency ther…

> I think again you are misunderstanding some severe things.

No doubt that I am misunderstanding some things. A lot of things, more likely. Severe? That depends.

If you look at the numbers, they never did fit in the narrative pushed on us. Yes this virus is not just like flu, it is way more dangerous for specific cohorts of at-risk people. Key here is: for specific cohorts. Not for everybody. Why is everybody's life being crippled right now to save the few? Why cannot we quarantine people at risk instead of everybody? There is a wide spectrum of possible options between doing nothing and keeping everybody under house arrest.

Have you ever been laid off in the middle of an economic collapse? I still have my job but I don't think I'm going to keep it for long. And when the day comes I'll have to choose between paying ~$2,500 a month to keep my existing health insurance coverage in the middle of a pandemic, or keeping food on the table. No social healthcare here.

No, it's not about numbers looking good while we're enjoying our stay at home. It's about trying to weigh the risks and being rational instead of "saving lives at all costs". The costs are already staggering beyond belief.

Post reply on HN