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

471–480 of 893 posts

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

#471

Post by the_watcher »

toasterlovin wrote: post #423
plorkyeran wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rates staying flat rather than going up is already a success, not a sign that SIP has failed.

But if the rates stay the same, then all we're accomplishing is slowing the rate at which we reach herd immunity. If herd immunity is the strategy we're pursuing, then we should lift restrictions enough to meet hospital capacity, so we can get to herd immunity as quickly as possible and get the economy back to something approaching normal levels of activity. If the strategy is actually suppression and elimination, th…

> If herd immunity is the strategy we're pursuing, then we should lift restrictions enough to meet hospital capacity, so we can get to herd immunity as quickly as possible and get the economy back to something approaching normal levels of activity

If it were remotely possible to precisely control the transmission rate such that we stay just under hospital capacity, there would at least be a coherent argument for this. I'd disagree, since a huge part of slowing the spread is to buy time for other mitigation options, such as therapeutics, contact tracing, etc. That said, it has been immensely frustrating that CA and SFBA leadership hasn't provided more clear guidance on what, exactly, we're waiting for.

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

#472

Post by twoodfin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #433
rayiner wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not agree? It’s simple math. In most states, your weekly unemployment is half your salary, up to a cap. Under the CARES Act, you then add $600/week. So if that extra $600 is more than half your weekly paycheck, you earn more on unemployment. It works out to everyone earning less than about $62,000, which is more than half of people in most of the country. Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to…

> Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.” Sure it is, plus it's a lie since unemployment requires active job search and taking offered employment, except for temporary layoff where you position is retained, where it still requires return to work when the employer ends the temporary layoff. You cannot choose to stay out of work and dra…

Is there a single state in the US that has not waived the “active job search” requirement for unemployment benefits at this point?

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

#474

Post by collectedparts »

khazhoux wrote: post #394
blast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a class divide, unfortunately. The people who are getting hit hardest are the people who were already getting hit hardest. Most of those don't frequent the same internet forums we do.

This is why "We're in this together" is just not true. Oprah has it better than me right now. But we both have it way better than my hairdresser (who knows if her salon will survive). And all three of us have it better than a Silicon Valley janitor. I'm filled every day with deep, deep sadness for everyone whose refrigerators are running out with their bank account at zero.

Not to be pedantic but "Silicon Valley janitor" (at least if it's for a big enough tech co) _might_ be doing OK. Various tech companies have publicly committed to paying their own hourly staff and subcontracted workers like food service / janitorial at full standard pre-shutdown rates: https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/06/big-tech-commits-to-paying...

(Though I have no insight into whether or not they've actually followed through on these public commitments).

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

#475

Post by tptacek »

greendave wrote: post #389
the_watcher wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there that the SIP is limited in effectiveness? The existing evidence I am aware of is starkly contra that assertion. Anecdotes of seeing people too close together in the park are not evidence of an ineffective SIP.

It's not that SIP does nothing - it's that past a certain point, the rates are what they are. San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have seen a slight increase in the number of cases last week over the previous week. Other Bay Area counties have seen a slight decrease [1]. I don't see how increased traffic/travel as we're starting to see [2] will do anything other than increase transmissions. [1] https://projects.sfchro…

You probably need to be careful with the numbers, because they're not necessarily a reflection of new cases so much as new testing.

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

#476

Post by ridgeguy »

toasterlovin wrote: post #423
plorkyeran wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rates staying flat rather than going up is already a success, not a sign that SIP has failed.

But if the rates stay the same, then all we're accomplishing is slowing the rate at which we reach herd immunity. If herd immunity is the strategy we're pursuing, then we should lift restrictions enough to meet hospital capacity, so we can get to herd immunity as quickly as possible and get the economy back to something approaching normal levels of activity. If the strategy is actually suppression and elimination, th…

IIUC, it's still unknown if having COVID-19 confers either short- or long-term immunity.

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

#477

Post by 1121redblackgo »

Zarath wrote: post #271
hombre_fatal wrote: post #4

I'm lucky enough to have remote work. And I'm sure many HNers have a nice buffer of savings from their tech jobs to weather the storm or are getting paid time off. But can anyone share what it's like to not be in either of these situations? How are your rent lords handling things? I live abroad in a cheap country so I can handle zero income, but I wouldn't be able to last long if rent was $2000+/mo instead of the Yet…

Get off reddit, you won't regret it or miss it at all tbh.

Reddit sure aint what it used to be.

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

#478

Post by lozaning »

dragonwriter wrote: post #433
rayiner wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you not agree? It’s simple math. In most states, your weekly unemployment is half your salary, up to a cap. Under the CARES Act, you then add $600/week. So if that extra $600 is more than half your weekly paycheck, you earn more on unemployment. It works out to everyone earning less than about $62,000, which is more than half of people in most of the country. Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to…

> Pointing out that this creates a disincentive to return to work isn’t accusing anyone of “living high in the benefits hog.” Sure it is, plus it's a lie since unemployment requires active job search and taking offered employment, except for temporary layoff where you position is retained, where it still requires return to work when the employer ends the temporary layoff. You cannot choose to stay out of work and dra…

I think you're being extraordinarily generous in your assumption that people wont just apply to jobs in bad faith. There are myriad opportunities to present yourself as a person that shouldn't be hired that occur between applying and getting an offer.

Im a proponent of UBI, but we don't do ourselves any favors by insisting that the current system isnt exploitable.

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

#479

Post by dillondoyle »

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #28
hombre_fatal wrote: post #4

I'm lucky enough to have remote work. And I'm sure many HNers have a nice buffer of savings from their tech jobs to weather the storm or are getting paid time off. But can anyone share what it's like to not be in either of these situations? How are your rent lords handling things? I live abroad in a cheap country so I can handle zero income, but I wouldn't be able to last long if rent was $2000+/mo instead of the Yet…

They will do the same thing homeowners will do; not pay. I hope nobody on here owns munis or bank stocks. Or REITs.

I'm pretty worried about my family. My dad barely survived 2008.

My extended family is heavily dependent on commercial real estate. My dad is the least (relatively) successful/smallest of the family. He's an agent (and small owner). At the end of 2019 helped facilitate a HUGE __ insert a top firm __ reit deal; $10 digits in a small ish state. Literally the top of the market. There's a reason his friend who sold that insane Sq Ft was already super wealthy. The small buildings my dad owns sounds like many can't pay rent.

I personally hedged a bit and including put REIT exposure. But despite having a super pessimistic view on the economy, seeing losses now is scary and I'm thinking about closing (i did move my main savings into much safer territory before the biggest drop and govt said they will buy unlimited bonds/debt..). That idiom the market can remain irrational longer comes to mind

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

#480

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #435
PureParadigm wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they're temporary. The concern is that if the shut down ends soon (seems unlikely but who knows) then it will delay an economic recovery until the temporary benefits expire. For a faster economic recovery we would want as many people getting back to work as possible. If you make more money not working, the rational choice is to wait for the temporary benefits to expire and then go back to work.

Again, unemployment requires you to actively search for work and accept offered employment or you lose benefits. Higher benefits don't create an incentive to voluntarily stay out of work since you can't have them if you do that.

That seems to rely on an assumption that there's no variation in amount or quality of job searching effort, above the minimum required, which might be influenced. It also assumes inability to fake a job search, or sabotage an otherwise legitimate one, which might let an individual so intending to fall below the required minimum. The latter seems questionable, the first seems wrong.
Post reply on HN