Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

smchealth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 292 posts

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#271

Post by samcheng »

shostack wrote: post #87
samcheng wrote: post #6

I may not agree with Dr. Morrow, but I definitely salute his willingness to buck consensus. We need civil discourse and robust dissent in our lives, and not in the form of “alternative facts”. I think most of the facts he lists are true, just that his judgements are not quite where mine are.

Why do you not agree with him?

Because he keeps saying there are not problems "yet" and trajectories / forecasts are clearly indicating a region-wide hospitalization crisis. He admits that a crisis will come, and just wants to wait; I believe it is wiser to preempt the crisis, particularly with a rapidly-growing epidemic and two-week latency between infection and hospitalization.

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#272

Post by mike_d »

WalterGR wrote: post #193
mike_d wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My county has about ~30 ICU beds left, yet hasn't triggered the magic state threshold. They are one mass causality incident (plane crash, roof collapsing, etc) from people going without care. Even if things are OK in San Mateo, they don't have to deal with the cases of people who go there because there are less restrictions. That is the whole point of counties working together.

The thresholds are by geographic area, not counties. California’s page about this is an easy read: https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/

> The thresholds are by geographic area, not counties.

Which is why I highlighted the situation was quite bad in my county, yet the bay area as a whole hasn't triggered the state mandates. It should be both county and region based.

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#273

Post by edmundsauto »

sokoloff wrote: post #262
edmundsauto wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really think missing 8% of required schooling is that dramatic? I can’t be the only person who thinks the education being afforded the folks hit hardest is minimally valuable. School sucks fir the vast majority of kids. It’s a warehousing system so parents can both work.

I don't have much doubt that this will increase educational inequality and it being only 8% of compulsory education might understate things, given the "stacking" nature of each year building on the foundations set in prior years. If you miss learning addition well, subtraction and multiplication is going to be hard. If you can't subtract and multiply, then learning division is going to be hard. If you can't multiply…

Isn't it possible that it's the elite students who will be hurt the most? Suppose they are getting 100% value from education. If a less privileged student is only getting 20% value from education, a 10% relative decrease only makes them 2% worse off.

My point is not that this is the right interpretation, it's just that I don't think it's settled about how much it will impact students, and which groups will be impacted disproportionately. Points about nutrition, getting out of abusive homes, etc., are all interesting and relevant and outside the scope of what I mean, which is purely focused on education outcomes.

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#274

Post by edmundsauto »

trhway wrote: post #269
edmundsauto wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence for your first graph, or is it something that you contributed in order to add more zest to your internet comment?

Unfortunately i'm about 160 years too late - the zest was added by Darwin. Covid itself is a result of such accelerated selection performed in that Wuhan lab - what is called "gain of function" experiments. A natural example of a global virus evolution phenomenon was observed in the 2nd wave of Spanish flu - that strain was mostly killing by causing hyper-reaction of immune system and especially in the healthy 20-50…

> Covid itself is a result of such accelerated selection performed in that Wuhan lab - what is called "gain of function" experiments.

Are you saying this form of the virus was created in a Wuhan lab? As far as I know, that's 100% dead red conspiracy theory, but I'm open to learn more from reputable sources.

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#275

Post by trhway »

edmundsauto wrote: post #274
trhway wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately i'm about 160 years too late - the zest was added by Darwin. Covid itself is a result of such accelerated selection performed in that Wuhan lab - what is called "gain of function" experiments. A natural example of a global virus evolution phenomenon was observed in the 2nd wave of Spanish flu - that strain was mostly killing by causing hyper-reaction of immune system and especially in the healthy 20-50…

> Covid itself is a result of such accelerated selection performed in that Wuhan lab - what is called "gain of function" experiments. Are you saying this form of the virus was created in a Wuhan lab? As far as I know, that's 100% dead red conspiracy theory, but I'm open to learn more from reputable sources.

it wasnt created, i.e. it isnt synthetic - in that regard those "debunking" articles are almost correct. The point here is that the "creation" is a red herring. The virus wasn't "created", it was selectively bred for higher virulence among mammals (as a way of getting closer to humans - "gain of function" experiments) like you'd do to get a new apple or corn breed. At some point either an employee got infected (or may be some limited human testing of a "flu" on some easy volunteer-able population like say prisoners as part of the experiments) or a carcass of a lab animal was sold at the market ...

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#276

Post by wnissen »

bsder wrote: post #170
sbuttgereit wrote: post #32

Reading this I was expecting the same knee-jerk, panic response that has become the "acceptable" public health response to the problem the pandemic places before us. While I detect a hint of futility in this statement, I am nonetheless deeply heartened to know some public health officials are themselves questioning some of the simplistic premises that have been driving policy to this point at all levels of government…

Quoting the man, himself: > I think people should stay at home, avoid all non-essential activities, wear masks, and not gather with anyone outside their households. I’ve been saying this for about 10 months now. If you didn’t listen to my (and many others) entreaties before, I don’t think you’ll likely change your behavior based on a new order. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. People are getting a LOT of pressure…

I agree that there are difficult tradeoffs here. Essentially ever official has said that there will be no enforcement, so the order effectively only applies to the persuadable.

My kid's scout troop is still meeting, kinda sorta complying with the letter of the order. I have advocated multiple times with the leadership to stop the meetings or at a minimum restrict them to small, stable groups, but I am the only one who feels that way. Perhaps a more severe shutdown would persuade them, but perhaps not. I wonder if just a few token enforcement actions, such as pulling people over and asking if they are complying, or modest fines for the local megachurch with 95 cars in the parking lot on Sundays, would go a long way toward making people think twice. There's a common feeling that if something is legal, it's OK, and I find that's rarely true. It's legal to fart in an elevator, but that doesn't make it right.

BTW, the "bully pulpit" specifically

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#277

Post by AnimalMuppet »

wnissen wrote: post #276
bsder wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting the man, himself: > I think people should stay at home, avoid all non-essential activities, wear masks, and not gather with anyone outside their households. I’ve been saying this for about 10 months now. If you didn’t listen to my (and many others) entreaties before, I don’t think you’ll likely change your behavior based on a new order. I disagree with this wholeheartedly. People are getting a LOT of pressure…

I agree that there are difficult tradeoffs here. Essentially ever official has said that there will be no enforcement, so the order effectively only applies to the persuadable. My kid's scout troop is still meeting, kinda sorta complying with the letter of the order. I have advocated multiple times with the leadership to stop the meetings or at a minimum restrict them to small, stable groups, but I am the only one wh…

95 cars sure doesn't meet my definition of a megachurch. That's rather small, actually.

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#278

Post by AnimalMuppet »

trhway wrote: post #269
edmundsauto wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence for your first graph, or is it something that you contributed in order to add more zest to your internet comment?

Unfortunately i'm about 160 years too late - the zest was added by Darwin. Covid itself is a result of such accelerated selection performed in that Wuhan lab - what is called "gain of function" experiments. A natural example of a global virus evolution phenomenon was observed in the 2nd wave of Spanish flu - that strain was mostly killing by causing hyper-reaction of immune system and especially in the healthy 20-50…

I'd like to see actual evidence that Covid does in fact come from "gain of function" experiments in the Wuhan lab. So far as I could see, your reference doesn't do that.

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#279

Post by atweiden »

curryst wrote: post #270
atweiden wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply illustrative of the fact people are driven by self-interest, and virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence.

Or they simply have a different level of risk tolerance than you. I'm comfortable going out to eat. I live alone, the only people I physically interact with these days are all under the age of 28, anyone in a risk group that I would interact with is back home a thousand or so miles away. > virtually never take group outcomes into consideration when making choices unless forced to under the threat of violence. Group o…

I think it's fair to say the Covid-free world of 2019 is preferable to the Covid-endemic world of 2020.

Melbourne AU — which is comparable to many European and American cities — eradicated Covid after 4 months of hard lockdown [1] combined with federal financial support.

Covid is the "endemic malaria problem" of 2020: just like malaria can be eradicated through water management, Covid can be eradicated through Australian-style government intervention. Today, both diseases are problems with clear and proven solutions.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25343640

Re: San Mateo County Health Officer Statement on Bay Area Stay-at-Home Orders

#280

Post by sokoloff »

edmundsauto wrote: post #273
sokoloff wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have much doubt that this will increase educational inequality and it being only 8% of compulsory education might understate things, given the "stacking" nature of each year building on the foundations set in prior years. If you miss learning addition well, subtraction and multiplication is going to be hard. If you can't subtract and multiply, then learning division is going to be hard. If you can't multiply…

Isn't it possible that it's the elite students who will be hurt the most? Suppose they are getting 100% value from education. If a less privileged student is only getting 20% value from education, a 10% relative decrease only makes them 2% worse off. My point is not that this is the right interpretation, it's just that I don't think it's settled about how much it will impact students, and which groups will be impacte…

Elite students from lower socioeconomic strata will likely be harmed. Elite students from upper strata will probably pull farther away (though may or may not suffer as compared to the counterfactual non-pandemic case).

To use your model, what you say is possible, but I think it's equally possible that the delta is additive rather than multiplicative. A 20% student and a 100% student might both lose 10% or 20% to [10%, 90%] or [0%, 80%] without intervention by involved parents.

My kids (grade 4 and 6) are getting a ton of dedicated 1:1 time including more coding time, paid math programs they enjoy playing, white-boarding problems with us, watching Nova/Nasa/other science content with us, and a lot more reading than if they were chained to a desk learning 2 hours of material in 6.5 hours. They might do better in this half school, half home school situation.

Post reply on HN