121–130 of 393 posts
Do they have a definition of what constitutes non-essential?
Yes, the order has a specific list. EDIT: Here is the order. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-2026-continuing-temporar... > Any essential business or entity providing essential services or functions shall not be subject to the in-person restrictions. This includes essential health care operations including research and laboratory services; essential infrastructure including utilities, telecommunication, airports a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a little extra short-term sacrifice can get us near eradication inside two months. "Near eradication" is not enough if you want to "snuff it out". COVID-19 started with only a couple of cases. There was a patient zero. So no, "a little extra short-term sacrifice" would not be enough, because you are very unlikely to catch everything, especially worldwide . Health workers would inevitably catch it by treating patien…
Oh, I don't think near eradication is an acceptable goal either. We need to actually eradicate it. I specified near eradication because we have proof by example that it is possible. As yet, nobody has actually eradicated the virus in their borders, so I don't want to presume it is possible. However, it needs to be the goal. > To address "If we adopt a stance that makes R0 Depends on what we get the value to. If we ge…
I don't think there's a world in which there's a better option than "waiting for the vaccine with various forms of mitigation". Boy would I love to be proven wrong.
There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially Then people won't take the rules seriously. Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
Man, I hate this take. I get where it's coming from. In times of significant stress, it's important that we all pull together and do work to benefit society as a whole. And part of the way we incentivize that is by calling out people who don't do their part. I get it. But we are already inundated by outrage journalism, cancel culture, and public shaming. The last thing we need is more of that. We've already got enoug…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be little appreciation on the internet for the fact that even in this situation, a big chunk of the population still has to go to work otherwise everything will collapse.
Thank you for saying this, it's been bothering me for days. Sure all of us computer people can lock ourselves in our houses for long periods of time. Some of us, like me, have already been doing that for years, but there are so many jobs that really are essential to keeping society functional, not just healthcare workers. For example, what about people in the building trades. Plumbing, HVAC, electrical, etc. If my fu…
You can't just stop all this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but can't help that They're fining (~$140) and detaining people who don't follow the rules in France. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
Doing that in the US is a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
Which might be reasonable if there are flagrant violators and things continue to get worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This virus will be with everyone for 18+ months, the point of the lockdown is allow the Health system to catch up If you lock down early you irreparably harm the local economy and simply delay a spike instead of "flattening the curve" unless you are willing to except a year long lock down, massive economic depression and the colapse of the US Dollar
This is happening in my area right now. The number of cases is little to none, but the governor threw a blanket lock down on bars and restaurants, etc, over the whole state. It was too early for my area for sure. So in the meantime, businesses and people's livelihoods are already being destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this will open the door for NYC to fully "shelter in place" lockdown, however.
Yeah, they're boiling the frog. Each incremental step is normalized over a few days, and then there's a new, stricter mandate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A month? Wouldn't it be more like 1-2 weeks?
The virus progresses from infection to death in more like 3 weeks, depending on medical care. Any change in infections wouldn't be seen for about that time.
From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175438.h... :
A new study calculates that the median incubation period for COVID-19 is just over 5 days and that 97.5% of people who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days of infection.
From https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Inkubationszeit :
...the incubation period can be up to 14 days. In addition, there are reports from Chinese researchers that extend the possible incubation period up to 24 days. An analysis of the first 425 cases reported in Wuhan shows an incubation period of 5.2 days on average and an average age of 59 years. ... A statistical analysis of several reports of infections in a household or in another narrow spatial limitation (so-called clusters) shows an incubation period of 5–6 days on average.
Anyway, as long as people don't keep distance between each other, the situation won't improve. Here in Switzerland the limit was shurunk within ~2 weeks from groups of people of max 1000 to 500 to 100 to 10 to 5 (today's new guidelines) => so far nothing improved.
The company I'm working for reacted early => many employees started staying at home (and working remotely) already 3 weeks ago, like myself => at the beginning it was ok for me, but now it's getting psychologically a bit "heavy". Luckily the government so far did not implement a total curfew, so from time to time we can still walk a bit in the parks/forests (but alone).