Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

sfmayor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 893 posts

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#51

Post by forrestthewoods »

Serious question: if restrictions aren’t lifted now then will they be? What will be meaningfully different June 1st rather than May 1st?

Is it shelter-in-place until we get more testing? Or the AppleGoogle contact tracing? Or is it shelter-in-place until a vaccine... in 18 months?

What are the conditions required to start slowly relaxing the shutdown?

Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. I haven’t left my home for two full months. I started preparing for the worst in early February. There are many options in between “full lockdown” and “fully open”. We won’t be in full lockdown for 18 months. So, what are the requirements to start slowly lifting.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#52

Post by zozbot234 »

rbritton wrote: post #36
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We in fact know very little about the consequences of serious C19 infections in people under 50, and people in their 40s apparently make up a substantial cohort of ICU C19 patients. We also don't know the long-term health implications of a severe C19 case, and there's some evidence to suggest permanent lung damage is one possible outcome. And, even if we didn't know any of those things, avoiding the deaths of people…

At what cost? When do you factor in the additional deaths and other consequences from suicides, domestic violence, increased substance abuse, and so on? There are two sides to the equation.

There's always "other consequences" you can point to for whatever policy. What about the upside that many can now work from home with flexible hours, and avoid the 996-ICU workweek.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#53

Post by newacct583 »

jhwang5 wrote: post #43
smallgovt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it moral to order people to shelter in place when their risk of death is 0.01% for 18-45 year olds The data from your second source indicates that the case fatality rate in New York for 18-45 yr olds is 0.833% (14 deaths in 1705 confirmed cases). Where are you getting 0.01% from?

Food for thought - if say 70% of cases are asymptomatic or mild (and therefore they don't get tested), then NYC's CFR already drops to 0.2% for the bucket you are referring to.

In fact that's the number reported for that demographic from Wuhan data way back in January, so it wouldn't surprise anyone. It's still 20x higher than the one quoted upthread.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#54

Post by snewman »

marcell wrote: post #5

Blanket lockdown has to end. This policy has outlived its usefulness, and is harming people's quality of life without a clear goal. The initial premise of the "flatten the curve" memes was to avoid overwhelming hospitals. The shelter-in-place has not only had this effect, it's been too effective. Hospital utilization in the bay area is at around 10% when you count surge capacity that has been added [1]. Meanwhile, da…

> ...risk of death is 0.01% for 18-45 year olds.

Where do you get this figure? Your first link shows 14 deaths per 100,000 in that age range, or 0.014%, but that is for the entire population, not just people who have had the virus. The same data set reports 1705 cases in that age range. 14 deaths out of 1705 cases is an 0.82% fatality rate.

Of course, that 0.82% figure, reflecting only confirmed cases, is inflated. But conversely, some of those 1705 afflicted 18-45 year olds may still succumb to the virus. The true IFR in this age range in this region _might_ be closer to 0.1% than 0.82%. But 0.01% is just wrong.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#55

Post by abadaba »

jamroom wrote: post #11
marcell wrote: post #5

Blanket lockdown has to end. This policy has outlived its usefulness, and is harming people's quality of life without a clear goal. The initial premise of the "flatten the curve" memes was to avoid overwhelming hospitals. The shelter-in-place has not only had this effect, it's been too effective. Hospital utilization in the bay area is at around 10% when you count surge capacity that has been added [1]. Meanwhile, da…

Our society includes people who are over 50 - how do ensure that YOU do not transmit coronavirus to them if you are under 50 and asymptomatic? I know a lot of people are pretty upset but it's not just about YOU. It's about everyone you come in contact with.

Just a thought, but it seems like there can be a middle ground where people belonging to certain risk groups (age, preexisting conditions, etc) are encouraged to take stronger shelter in place measures, and in exchange are granted larger amounts of financial aid to compensate.

People not belonging to risk groups can resume working, still taking extra precautions to prevent transmission. The economy can gradually reopen while also slowly building up herd immunity among the least vulnerable population. It seems unsustainable to have an indefinite blanket lockdown, but I’m very open to changing my mind on this.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#56

Post by throwlaplace »

smallgovt wrote: post #40
throwlaplace wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is it moral to order people to shelter in place when their risk of death is 0.01% for 18-45 year olds How brave of you to sacrifice people other than yourself. Everyone advocating for this should have to forfeit %50 of their earnings for the next 10 years to fund the medical care of all of those affected. That way at least everyone has some skin in the game.

To be fair, the cost of COVID medical care pales in comparison to the likely impact on future earnings these shutdowns are having. If it's strictly about money, we should cease shutdowns immediately. But, it's not. People are dying.

>If it's strictly about money, we should cease shutdowns immediately. But, it's not. People are dying.

it's not about money in my opinion and is about deaths. i could've said "everyone advocating for this has to lose a digit for every person that dies" but i thought people would downvote. guess i was wrong since they downvoted anyway.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#57

Post by benjaminwootton »

marcell wrote: post #5

Blanket lockdown has to end. This policy has outlived its usefulness, and is harming people's quality of life without a clear goal. The initial premise of the "flatten the curve" memes was to avoid overwhelming hospitals. The shelter-in-place has not only had this effect, it's been too effective. Hospital utilization in the bay area is at around 10% when you count surge capacity that has been added [1]. Meanwhile, da…

Funny that this is exactly the same narrative as here in the UK. Initially it was about flattening the curve for healthcare capacity, now we are in some weird holding pattern where the goal is becoming increasingly vague.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#58

Post by glofish »

j79 wrote: post #3

I told my wife that I've come assumed shelter-in-place IS in place until a vaccine has been developed. Either that, or herd immunity is to a point where going outside isn't a game of Russian roulette.

it is a game of Russian roulette where there is one bullet per 100K empty chambers.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#59

Post by crocodiletears »

scott_s wrote: post #29
marcell wrote: post #5

Blanket lockdown has to end. This policy has outlived its usefulness, and is harming people's quality of life without a clear goal. The initial premise of the "flatten the curve" memes was to avoid overwhelming hospitals. The shelter-in-place has not only had this effect, it's been too effective. Hospital utilization in the bay area is at around 10% when you count surge capacity that has been added [1]. Meanwhile, da…

I've seen you say similar things in a few other threads, and myself and others have said, every time: the risk to everyone is that the hospitals become overwhelmed. They are not right now because of stay-at-home orders. What you think of as failure - hospitals currently low utilization - is in fact success .

You can ease up on the lockdown without ending it.

That's what I read the parent to be implying.

Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May

#60

Post by tptacek »

djrogers wrote: post #46
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We in fact know very little about the consequences of serious C19 infections in people under 50, and people in their 40s apparently make up a substantial cohort of ICU C19 patients. We also don't know the long-term health implications of a severe C19 case, and there's some evidence to suggest permanent lung damage is one possible outcome. And, even if we didn't know any of those things, avoiding the deaths of people…

Long term health implications have nothing to do with the lockdowns, and extending them has no impact on those theoretical boogey-men. Lockdowns were intended to 'flatten the curve' so that hospitals aren't overwhelmed. The same number of people will get sick but over a longer period of time. Keeping the lockdowns in full effect will only ensure that those who get disproportionately sick are the ones in critical serv…

That's a talking point, not an argument. In reality the state governments have broad powers, stemming back to jurisprudence from the time of the framers (cases involving these powers were heard by John Marshal), to employ police powers in the service of quarantines, and those powers were further spelled out by statute as recently as the 2000s in the wake of 9/11. None of those powers are constrained by any notion of "flattening the curve", a "flattened curve" isn't a permanent state, and there are rational goals to quarantines beyond keeping the hospitals occupied at an optimal level.
Post reply on HN