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

191–200 of 893 posts

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

#191

Post by rajup »

guygurari wrote: post #127
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…

We don’t know enough so let’s stop the economy while we find out? That is not typically how we do things, because it’s not a rational response. For example, we didn’t know whether holding a mobile phone close to our ear for extended periods of time leads to serious health issues, and there was suspicion that it does. But we didn’t prohibit it — we let people decide for themselves, and it does seem the risk was lower…

+1. This argument about not knowing long term effects of COVID-19, and hence we have to keep the economy shut down indefinitely makes no sense at all. Making masks mandatory in public, keeping people at risk at home and starting to open up the economy sounds like a more sound strategy.

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

#192

Post by wgerard »

ttul wrote: post #143
newacct583 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the Vancouver lockdown is largely identical to the California one, no? What is open there that isn't in CA? I know restaurants, theaters, large gatherings, etc... are all closed, which is the economic activity most of the "reopen" people are concerned about. Edit to note: two responses "disagreeing" with me by pointing out that the BC lockdown is effectively the same thing as the California o…

First, it's not a Vancouver lockdown (it's a BC thing), nor is it really a lockdown at all. Nobody is legally required to stay at home except for people who are under a specified health order. Here are the restrictions on life that are most commonly noticed: 1. Restaurants are closed except for take-out and delivery. 2. Personal services businesses are closed. 3. Large gatherings of all kinds are banned. 4. Schools a…

FWIW I'm not familiar with CA specifically, but that sounds like the same kind of lockdown we have here in NY.

Offices are voluntarily closed, as far as I can tell, not by fiat. While you're only supposed to be working at an office if you're an essential worker, the definition is somewhat loose.

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

#193

Post by nathanaldensr »

marcell wrote: post #110
scott_s wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

What is your evidence that hospitals in America in general, and in California, are anywhere near being overwhelmed? I've cited evidence which shows the opposite--they are very far from being overwhelmed.

I just went to the ER last night for what turned out to be a kidney stone. The place was empty. The doctor had just learned that day that the owners had laid off 50% of the staff.

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

#194

Post by killion »

cactus2093 wrote: post #41
killion wrote: post #2

We 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…

That we have dropped 50% from the peak is true according to the site you linked as well...

https://update.covid19.ca.gov

115 deaths on April 22nd.

45 deaths on April 26th.

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

#195

Post by ravenstine »

ac29 wrote: post #178
alexis_fr wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+ Deaths by obesity from staying home, + Home violence, + CO2-increased houses make people much less clever, + Demotivation/decrease of testosterone makes people durably less productive, further hampering our ability maintain the little flow of goods that’s left. We are setting up ourselves for a much more deadly future.

Exercise hasn't been banned, so unless you absolutely can not exercise without a full gym, there shouldn't be any reason to think people will be gaining weight, or having decreased testosterone. Even if you don't want to leave the house, you can still do things like Yoga, lift weights, or any number of other physical activities that need little or no equipment. I'm not sure what the concern about CO2 is - at least in…

That may be true, but that isn't going to change human behavior. Encouraging people to continuing to work out at home is a good thing, but most people are demoralized. Fewer people are going to exercise because there's nothing to do, nobody to see, and not much to look forward to for the next year. I know my fitness has decreased due to demoralization. Sure, I can exercise, but it's hard to find reasons to exercise beyond mere health. Most people also want to be fit because they want to look good, but during the pandemic, looking good for whom? Toss unemployment income and "survival" junk food into the mix, and you've got a population that is probably overall less healthy.

I'm on board with keeping up the exercise, by the way. It's just that the reality is that people aren't going to come out of this more healthy because their motivation has been crushed.

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

#196

Post by arblify »

CPLX wrote: post #185
arblify wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, we do need a plan, but we need trained epidemiologists and other public health figures to define that plan. Many features of disease spread are counterintuitive and we need people with training to help us, the public, understand the problem and reasonable solutions. When people like Michael Osterholm tell me that it is possible one or two million people will die in the United States, I believe h…

I mean, it's not like this crisis started an hour ago. What's their plan? Like can someone write it down and post in on a government website? We're all commenting on what appears to be an official government press release that is announcing an entire month of some of the most serious restrictions on the public ever put in place, that does not appear to even try to take any kind of quantitative approach to explaining…

Once you commit to some success metric, you're going to be stuck with it even it proves to be a bad metric. Let's say we all agree the "2 weeks with decreasing number of deaths" is a good target. Then we go back to work, and we discover that going back triggers a rapid spread and kills a bunch of people and starts to overwhelm hospitals. Now we need a new metric.

This is a novel scientific problem. Caution and study are warranted. People's lives are at stake.

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

#197

Post by ryandrake »

SnowProblem wrote: post #141
cs702 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If many people get very sick simultaneously, they would not only overwhelm hospitals, they would also inflict a disorderly, involuntary shutdown of large swaths of the economy, driven by fear -- instead of the orderly, voluntary shutdown we have at present, driven by government mandate. We all want to avoid a disorderly shutdown driven by fear.

Your definition of voluntary is entirely different from mine.

The current so-called shutdown (at least where I live) seems to be mostly voluntary. People are out and about horsing around all the time. There's no difference in traffic before and after on my street. It's pretty much being ignored by many people, and there's no visible enforcement. It seems more like a stay-at-home suggestion than an order.

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

#198

Post by usaar333 »

cactus2093 wrote: post #41
killion wrote: post #2

We 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…

We should separate LA from ex-LA. Bay area has peaked.. if you exclude nursing homes (which the lockdown relatively failed to protect), it's even sharper of a drop.

https://covid-19.direct/metro/BayArea

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

#199

Post by ac29 »

cpncrunch wrote: post #128
newacct583 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the Vancouver lockdown is largely identical to the California one, no? What is open there that isn't in CA? I know restaurants, theaters, large gatherings, etc... are all closed, which is the economic activity most of the "reopen" people are concerned about. Edit to note: two responses "disagreeing" with me by pointing out that the BC lockdown is effectively the same thing as the California o…

No. We are allowed to drive. All workplaces are open except for places like restaurants, personal service businesses, gyms and theatres. Other businesses just have to ensure distancing.

We're allowed to drive in California too - its supposed be for "essential" travel only, but that is pretty broad. I'd estimate in the Bay Area, traffic is only down by 50% or so (though certain commute routes are more dramatically impacted).

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

#200

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #60
djrogers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN