California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges • Hacker News Board

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#91

Post by bsder » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

banads wrote: post #72

CerealFounder wrote: post #28

I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre

Why doesn't the state also mandate exercise, diet, and sleep?

Because lack of those generally doesn't harm others.

And, you can be charged with things caused by lack of sleep--reckless driving, for instance.

However, there is a difference between fining someone for lack of compliance and jailing someone for lack of compliance. Jailing someone in the middle of a pandemic is stupid.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#92

Post by standardUser » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

TomVDB wrote: post #76

standardUser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not suggest herd immunity has occurred. You seem to be confusing the idea of herd immunity with the similar idea that any immunity in a population will reduce the transmission rate by some amount.

You’re saying that maybe CA should have done some middle ground closure since that might have help a little more with increasing immunity. My point is that the goal of increasing immunity is pointless unless it can be raised to a very high percentage and without taking massive casualties. Without a vaccine, that’s simply not possible for COVID-19. And thus that suggestion doesn’t make a lot of I sense. The benefit of…

The point of raising immunity is to (speculatively) make it easier to keep the transmission rate low. So other measures become less necessary. Maybe we could open schools, for example. This seems to be what has happened in the places that have been hit hardest. But obviously partial immunity in the population is only one factor impacting the transmission rate. There's masks and lack of indoor gatherings, etc. Though I hear in France, which was hit very hard, they're not even bothering with masks any longer.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#93

Post by refurb » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #63

refurb wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Seropositive tests have show the vast majority develop an immune response, how long that lasts we don’t know, but even if it’s only 6 months, that will reduce spread. You don’t create an epidemic plan based on edge cases. And it’s important to note that the tests are looking for viral RNA. Viral RNA can be found even if virus are inactivated in the absence of an active infection…

No one yet knows whether the antibodies detected in seropositive tests actually confer protection against getting sick from this virus. For some viruses, like, say, HIV, you can have lots of antibodies against it, but still be sick with HIV. It is not yet clear whether SARS-CoV-2 is like HIV in this sense or if the antibodies produced by the body after infection with the virus actually confer protection against futur…

That’s true, but what we know about the Coronavirus class suggests it’s not like HIV (where the immune response does little to control the infection). Again, there are a lot of unknowns, but focusing on edge scenarios or edge cases just leads down rabbit holes.

I work in the healthcare space, and a physician recommended this review recently published in JAMA.[1]. He felt it was probably the best summary of all the data that’s out there (>29,000 papers on Covid).

I found this particularly relevant - Although viral nucleic acid can be detectable in throat swabs for up to 6 weeks after the onset of illness, several studies suggest that viral cultures are generally negative for SARS-CoV-2 8 days after symptom onset.

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768391

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#94

Post by digsy » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #24

woeirua wrote: post #9

The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to reinstitute stay-at-home orders?

My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were neve…

>We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet.

Deaths are down if you look at the US as a whole.

However, if you look at the state level its not always the same picture.

Florida's death toll is up from a 7-day rolling average of 51 in April (the peak of its first wave) to 71 as of yesterday.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#95

Post by blisseyGo » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

yodon wrote: post #85

blisseyGo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's unconstitutional and masks don't even work unless they are N95 which are fitted. Neither for the wearer, nor for the people around them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article > Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contam…

The studies you cite focus on the use of masks to protect the wearer of the mask. The purpose of masks is not to protect the wearer of the mask but to protect others. In simple hand-waving terms the mask diffuses the wearer's exhalation reducing the velocity of the air stream and its contained particles, thereby reducing the distance the particles can travel and increasing the odds that the particles drop out of the…

No, the first study I cited states:

> There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.

And the later study states non-N95 masks allow 97%.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#96

Post by perrylaj » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

banads wrote: post #72

CerealFounder wrote: post #28

I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre

Why doesn't the state also mandate exercise, diet, and sleep?

This is such a silly response. Did you have the same compelling argument when mandatory seatbelt laws went into effect?

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#97

Post by blisseyGo » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #84

blisseyGo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's unconstitutional and masks don't even work unless they are N95 which are fitted. Neither for the wearer, nor for the people around them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article > Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contam…

>I literally shared multiple studies which state "There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure." It's the first half that I would take issue with, and I don't see anything you quoted as convincingly supporting it. Garden variety masks are not suitable for hea…

As I mentioned to the other person, the first study I cited states:

> There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.

The later study also states non-N95 masks allow 97%. So basically useless.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#98

Post by blisseyGo » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

anarazel wrote: post #86

blisseyGo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a myth which keeps getting repeated. I posted multiple studies which debunk it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23825646

They don't debunk anything. The last study you quote says "this highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease.". Another is a meta-study of very few low quality studies. The osha guidelines are essentially just explaining that respirators are important in some settings, which nobody serious doubts. Another just determines…

How is it half related? The first study I cited states:

> There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure.

I cited multiple studies. No idea where your "bunch of half related studies" is coming from. Your comment comes off as condescending.

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#99

Post by ilyagr » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

jbaudanza wrote: post #29

These are the affected counties: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393 Notably, San Francisco isn’t included. Probably because SF hasn’t opened up as much as other counties on this list.

It's not just those counties. There are new statewide restrictions:

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024

The counties you listed have additional new restrictions.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/12827536569834...

Re: California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

#100

Post by woeirua » Mon, Jul 13, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #58

throw0101a wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> deaths (the more important number) Is it though? > For every one person who dies: > 19 more require hospitalization. > 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. > 10 will have permanent lung damage. > 3 will have strokes. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive functio…

How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?). Assume 1% fatality rate for infections (it’s actually lower), you’re saying somewhere 19% to 60% (depending on overlap of those categories) have permanent damage? That’s clearly not what we’re seeing.

You're misinterpreting it. It says that for every 1 fatality there are 19 covid patients that have longlasting complications. It doesn't state though how many mild, uncomplicated cases there will be for every 1 hospitalized, i.e. what the denominator is. For example, if there are 1000 cases for every hospitalized case, then 19/1000 isn't that high.