I just noticed that it’s 75 days between March 17 and May 31. Wuhan’s lockdown was 76 days long.
The Wuhan lockdown was also far more strict.
The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
61–70 of 893 posts
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#62Blanket 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 been wondering for a while what the end game is. There seems to only be 3 options: 1: Lockdown forever. 2: Everyone becomes immune. 3: Vaccine. 1 is unrealistic. 3 will take a year. 2 the lockdown is too effective - we need at least some people to get infected, and hospitals to be utilized at a manageable rate. Is there a 4th option I did not think of? Because I can't figure out how they are going to end this. I…
Lockdown until you can get back to containment (drive infection numbers so low that you have the resources to trace/test contacts and send possible infections into quarantine).
"Everyone becomes immune" will take longer than vaccine if you don't want to overload your hospitals, and bets on long-term immunity which we don't know yet.
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The purpose of the lockdown is not to prevent everyone from getting the disease, or to hide in our homes until it magically goes away. The stated purpose of the lockdown was to 'flatten the curve'. Don't go moving goalposts on us all now that we've flattened the curve, especially when we're talking about people's constitutional rights.
Moving the goalposts was always the idea. That's what the governor here in WA did, and said as much.
I, personally, am livid that the construction site right outside my bedroom window is now allowed to make ungodly amounts of noise for 15 hours a day and I have nowhere to go. This is insane.
Lockdowns have a tremendous cost in mental health. There's a point at which the toll is simply too high. We're not there yet, but it's not far. And waiting until "the data shows it" through elevated suicide rate is... not how I want us to play this, as a society.
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#64Blanket 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 .
Here in BC we don't have such restrictive conditions, and yet we still have very few cases. Vancouver has about 76% of the population of SF, but has half the number of cases. Restricting people to be at home has no benefit, no logic behind it, but has significant repercussions on mental health.
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
THEY are the ones who need to take extra precautions.
Thankfully, you appear to be overwhelmingly outvoted in this "let's set up a peeing section for the swimming pool" position. Lockdown measures and the activist governors pursuing them are, for the moment, overwhelmingly popular --- the population as a whole is strongly more concerned that lockdowns will end too early, and strongly more worried that they will suffer health consequences from C19 than that they'll suffe…
> let's set up a peeing section for the swimming pool" position
Ha ha. I am going to borrow that line.
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
THEY are the ones who need to take extra precautions.
Thankfully, you appear to be overwhelmingly outvoted in this "let's set up a peeing section for the swimming pool" position. Lockdown measures and the activist governors pursuing them are, for the moment, overwhelmingly popular --- the population as a whole is strongly more concerned that lockdowns will end too early, and strongly more worried that they will suffer health consequences from C19 than that they'll suffe…
Sadly you seem to be of the opinion that we can cower in our homes until the disease magically goes away. That's not the way this works - it doesn't just go away.
I'm really disturbed by the number of people who seem to be perfectly happy moving the goalposts for these lockdowns as long as they're politically popular. Here's a hint - freedom and constitutional rights weren't intended to be politically popular (or particularly safe) as the popular opinions don't need protection.
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Perhaps when the data starts showing it.
There is dated data (from 1981) showing a 37,000 increase in deaths for each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate. It comes from a book called “Corporate Flight: The Causes and Consequences of Economic Dislocation” by Barry Bluestone, Bennett Harrison and Lawrence Baker.
From the article citation below:
> Here’s the paragraph from Thomas’ book that applies: “According to one study [the one by Bluestone et al.] a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks], 920 suicides, 650 homicides, 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.”
The data is stale, for sure, but the correlation (economic downturn->increase in deaths) is arguably proven.
https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/explaining-the-link-between-un...
(I was unable to find an online version of the book to link to in Google Books or openlibrary.org; I bought the book used from Amazon, it's headed to the Internet Archive for scanning).
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#68We are down 50% from the peak of Covid deaths in California. It seems likely we will have one or more days of zero Covid deaths before the end of May. That is the measure I assume they are going for at this point. Source: https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/cali...
This is untrue. We may have plateaued but we haven't yet seen a significant drop from the peak yet. 4 days ago there were 115 deaths, then 93 the next day, then 89 the next, that's as high as the peak you're referring to. Source - daily department of health releases https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/New-Release-2020.... The drop you are inferring from your graph appears to be a be a reflection of a noisy dat…
Yeah that's definitely a day-of-week/reporting dump effect making that spike. The 7 day rolling data for deaths shows CA is only 6% below the most recent peak:
https://www.deptofnumbers.com/covid19/california/#deaths
nb: that's my site
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps when the data starts showing it.
There is dated data (from 1981) showing a 37,000 increase in deaths for each percentage-point rise in the unemployment rate. It comes from a book called “Corporate Flight: The Causes and Consequences of Economic Dislocation” by Barry Bluestone, Bennett Harrison and Lawrence Baker. From the article citation below: > Here’s the paragraph from Thomas’ book that applies: “According to one study [the one by Bluestone et a…
Then what's happening right now is a refutation of that data, right? Because we have sky-high unemployment and nothing resembling those numbers. It's almost as if unemployment in ordinary circumstances is not the same as unemployment caused by a discrete, universally-applicable crisis.
Re: The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The purpose of the lockdown is not to prevent everyone from getting the disease, or to hide in our homes until it magically goes away. The stated purpose of the lockdown was to 'flatten the curve'. Don't go moving goalposts on us all now that we've flattened the curve, especially when we're talking about people's constitutional rights.
I agree that there are a lot of problems with continuing the lockdown as it currently stands. However, the phrase "now that we've flattened the curve" could be interpreted to imply the curve can't quickly become unflattened, which would be wrong.