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

111–120 of 893 posts

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

#111

Post by CPLX »

newacct583 wrote: post #83
crocodiletears wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ease up on the lockdown without ending it. That's what I read the parent to be implying.

Ease up how? I mean, what's the specific proposal? The lockdown isn't "total" anyway -- very large numbers of people are still working at full salary (including, it must be pointed out, probably more than half the readers of this very site). There's little to no low hanging fruit of safe jobs that can be reopened. Just go look at the California list of "essential" jobs and tell us what needs to be added. Fundamentall…

> Ease up how? I mean, what's the specific proposal?

Not sure how to put this but if you're advocating for the side that wants to confine seven million people to their homes and shut down nearly all commerce you're the one that has to come up with the specific proposal.

The objection is that there doesn't seem to be any kind of numerical metric to determine the success of this shelter in place policy.

It's public policy. So what are the stated goals of that policy, and what are the criteria for determining success?

It is a serious fucking problem that people aren't even really trying to answer that question any more.

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

#112

Post by justin66 »

tptacek wrote: post #20
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…

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…

And there's the strokes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-cor...

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

#113

Post by tptacek »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #91
tptacek wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will not dispute that you could be right. We'll only know for sure looking back from the future (lagging indicators and such).

I think the "harm from unemployment will swamp harm from C19" argument will get stronger the longer lockdown lasts, but that the ~month we've had widespread lockdown orders is not close to long enough to make the argument without clear data. We have strong evidence that explosive C19 case growth kills lots of people; that's a hard data point to overcome.

If you want to be frustrated with the unbounded nature of the crisis, I think the right place to focus that anger is on testing; in Illinois, we have something like a 22% positive rate on PCR testing, suggesting we're not testing nearly enough people.

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

#114

Post by luckylion »

throwlaplace wrote: post #56
smallgovt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it's not about money in my opinion and is about deaths

Are you aware of the fact that people die every day to e.g. deliver groceries to your store, harvest plants, build houses etc pp? Do we shut down all activity that will lead to somebody somewhere losing their life?

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

#115

Post by CamperBob2 »

newacct583 wrote: post #83
crocodiletears wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ease up on the lockdown without ending it. That's what I read the parent to be implying.

Ease up how? I mean, what's the specific proposal? The lockdown isn't "total" anyway -- very large numbers of people are still working at full salary (including, it must be pointed out, probably more than half the readers of this very site). There's little to no low hanging fruit of safe jobs that can be reopened. Just go look at the California list of "essential" jobs and tell us what needs to be added. Fundamentall…

Ease up by returning to normal economic activities, but with mandatory masks and gloves for most workers and consumers, while strongly encouraging social distancing.

My current belief, based on experiences reported in other countries, is that this would be enough. There's not much evidence that total physical lockdown is necessary for everyone regardless of their level of vulnerability.

Not a doctor, not medical advice, etc.

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

#116

Post by throwlaplace »

ravenstine wrote: post #96
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 .

The problem I see with that statement is that it's difficult, if not impossible to falsify. Hospitals are nowhere near being overwhelmed, in general, which means that they have some capacity to handle an outbreak if we lift restrictions gradually. I know people who work at hospitals in places like LA, and they've reported that activity is relatively slow. (of course in part because fewer people are going to the ER fo…

>The problem I see with that statement is that it's difficult, if not impossible to falsify.

All you have to do is take a look at hospitals in NYC to know how wrong you are and right the person you responded to is.

>Someone in my neighborhood spent their life savings on starting a gourmet burgers and brews joint

Holy shit won't someone please think of the gastropubs. This is why I'll never believe this is a good faith concern for the people that really need our concern right now: no one ever says "I know a delivery driver" or "I know a busboy" or "I know a janitor" that needs help. It's always some lifestyle business owner that we should be weeping for in these outcries.

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

#117

Post by cpncrunch »

akozak wrote: post #89
cpncrunch wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seriously? No benefit, no logic?

Correct. Driving somewhere doesnt increase risk, any more than walking near your home. In a large city you are probably better driving outside the city.

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

#118

Post by rbritton »

zozbot234 wrote: post #52
rbritton wrote: post #36

Earlier 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.

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.

And those consequences matter. You can't handwave them away and pretend they don't exist.

Don't forget that you work in a fairly unique field. Many, many occupations cannot work from home.

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

#119

Post by toomuchtodo »

tptacek wrote: post #113
toomuchtodo wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will not dispute that you could be right. We'll only know for sure looking back from the future (lagging indicators and such).

I think the "harm from unemployment will swamp harm from C19" argument will get stronger the longer lockdown lasts, but that the ~month we've had widespread lockdown orders is not close to long enough to make the argument without clear data. We have strong evidence that explosive C19 case growth kills lots of people; that's a hard data point to overcome. If you want to be frustrated with the unbounded nature of the c…

I drove passed a testing center in Aurora at the Premium Outlet Mall (I-88 & Farnsworth) twice this weekend, both Saturday and Sunday morning. They opened at 8am each day, and had reached capacity shortly after. I agree that testing efforts deserve the ire of the populace.

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

#120

Post by flatline »

djrogers wrote: post #16
jamroom wrote: post #11

Earlier 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.

The situation is rapidly developing. Our knowledge is constantly growing and will continue to do so. Under these circumstances, I don't think moving the goalposts is avoidable. Nobody is hoping for magic: they are waiting till it's safe to go outside. Perhaps a vaccine will make that a reality in...a couple years? Regardless of what the government does, I say, prepare for a long haul.

On the one hand there is a tremendous amount of real damage being done by everyone sheltering in place. On the other hand it's not the government's orders that are the direct cause, so much as the virus itself. We are in a global pandemic. It is unprecedented. Telling everyone to go outside again is not going to magically make it happen.

Can you imagine re-opening schools right now? Summer camps? It would be sheer carnage, and those who do want to protect themselves will be less able to do so. It would just shift the pain points around, and cause a lot of deaths right away. Would that be worse than it is right now? Probably. Would it be worse than another six months of sheltering in place? Nobody knows!

Post reply on HN