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

331–340 of 893 posts

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

#331

Post by wpietri »

01100011 wrote: post #243

I'm surprised we're not seeing plans for some businesses to reopen with restrictions. I think it will be a while before we allow haircuts and manicures again, but I see no reason why we can't increase the types of businesses allowed open. Limiting occupancy, requiring PPE, and enforcing social distancing appear to be reasonable requirements. I hope the politicians and government workers are busy trying to find a midd…

From what the SF and CA governments have been saying, that's definitely next. Part of the goal of having mask orders now is to get people used to it. But until our test-and-trace capacity exceeds the rate of new infections, putting more people on the streets is only digging the hole deeper.

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

#332

Post by rootusrootus »

walterbell wrote: post #307
nradov wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If nothing else, at least we'll come out of this pandemic with some clear Supreme Court decisions to clarify what emergency powers state and local governments actually have. One nuance that people seem to miss is that timing matters. So a very short restriction on Constitutional rights may be acceptable, but the court places increasing scrutiny on those restrictions the longer they remain in place.

From https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/494892-barr-tell... > Attorney General William Barr on Monday directed federal prosecutors to “be on the lookout” for public health measures put in place amid the coronavirus pandemic that might be running afoul of constitutional rights. In a two-page memorandum to the 93 U.S. attorneys, Barr cautioned that some state and local directives could be infringing on protect…

I'd love to believe that comes from a genuine appreciation of civil liberties and not from an election-year attempt to pander to the current executive's voting base.

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

#333

Post by usaar333 »

mattkrause wrote: post #257
killion wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rt of .88 according to https://rt.live I agree some restrictions could be relaxed. Hospitals were a good first step. More of the outdoors could be a good next one.

0.88 doesn't buy you very much room. If it creeps up to 1.1, you still don't need many rounds of infection to completely overwhelm the system. 7 rounds of infection (~a month) would result in 10.4x more total patients.

I'm not following your math. On a serial interval of 4, 7 rounds of infection does take a month, but that's only 1.1^7 = 2.

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

#334

Post by buboard »

ultrarunner wrote: post #263
dustingetz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit was the only place with covid info in January! And then in Feb, HN penalized coronavirus keyword as fake news.

Reddit was a good source early on, by it was fairly quickly overrun with doomsayers.

/r/covid19 is a great place to find the latest curated research

reddit is great, if you avoid the popular but juvenile places

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

#335

Post by brucer »

oppositelock wrote: post #235
bobthepanda wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any lockdowns which are specifically targeted at small retailers while competing large retailers are allowed to be open. Where I am the small coffee shops are closed for walk-in business, but so are the Starbucks; the difference is that small coffee shops are not able to pivot to a centralized delivery platform en masse the way Starbucks is.

I can speak to a few examples specifically. It's planting season now, and high business for nurseries. In Santa Clara County, they're closed by fiat. Lowe's, Home Depot, ACE hardware sell essential things (plumbing supplies, etc), so they get to remain open, in-store nurseries and all. So, if I want tomatoes, I have to brave the crowds at Lowe's instead of hopping out to my local nursery which is rarely densely popul…

I believe nurseries are open again: https://summerwindsnursery.com/ca/promotions/curbside-pickup...

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

#336

Post by lalaithion »

rayiner wrote: post #311
muzz wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some politicians have pointed out that some lower income people are getting paid more to _not_ work now, due to unemployment benefits and the CARES Act. I'm not saying that I agree with those politicians. It seems like the concern for lower income people runs the gamut from them not being able to make it to them living high on the benefits hog. Edit: It's not just politicians-- similar stories are on CNBC: https://ww…

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…

But is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine? If we can get out the other side without millions of bankruptcies, foreclosures, and evictions, certainly that will contribute to a faster economic recovery. Sure, some white collar workers will be disincentivized from working... as long as the CARES act stays in effect. And you don't get unemployment if you quit, so no one will actively leave their jobs under this scheme.

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

#337

Post by mlyle »

jupp0r wrote: post #170
forrestthewoods wrote: post #51

Serious question: if restrictions aren’t lifted now then will they be? What will be meaningfully different June 1st rather than May 1st? Is it shelter-in-place until we get more testing? Or the AppleGoogle contact tracing? Or is it shelter-in-place until a vaccine... in 18 months? What are the conditions required to start slowly relaxing the shutdown? Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. I haven’t left my home for…

Here are the conditions for lifting the CA stay at home orders: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/California... It basically comes down to being able to contain disease spread by contact tracing and testing.

The recently stated goal is to decay to 1 infection per million residents so that robust contact tracing works. Back of the envelope math puts that between 6 and 18 months of continued progress of the health order to get it to this level.

(60 or so in Santa Clara County ICU == ~6000 infections. ICU occupancy decaying by 40% per month; 0.6^15 months * 6000 = ~3 )

If you look at hospital admissions, instead, it's a bit less than a 40% decay per week. So we get something more like 5-6 months.

I don't see either of these as plausible. And even if we have lowered Rt to this point of decay for most subpopulations, I'm better there's a few where it's higher and that will eventually shallow out the decline. Not to mention the risks from areas with lower controls.

The IMHE model is very influential, but it has been forecasting an unrealistically quick decline in cases that has encouraged public health officials to seriously consider trying to get to this minimal level of cases.

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

#338

Post by walterbell »

op00to wrote: post #326
walterbell wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless there's a state-mandated quota on essential businesses, what's stopping a store from adding some essential goods to their inventory and merchandising? This would reduce the burden on other stores, i.e. increasing social distancing in parking lots and within the story. Laws exist with the consent of the governed. When laws are instituted under premises (e.g models, intelligence) that are later proved wrong (e.g…

A number of small businesses in my area are offering groceries even though that is not their core business.

If someone could interview them on the operational and regulatory logistics of that change, we could put that on github and build a playbook for other small businesses, sharing strategies across towns & states.

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

#339

Post by sanderjd »

rayiner wrote: post #311
muzz wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some politicians have pointed out that some lower income people are getting paid more to _not_ work now, due to unemployment benefits and the CARES Act. I'm not saying that I agree with those politicians. It seems like the concern for lower income people runs the gamut from them not being able to make it to them living high on the benefits hog. Edit: It's not just politicians-- similar stories are on CNBC: https://ww…

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…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't unemployment benefits temporary? Are these any different? I was reading through the tangled web of information at the DOL[0] and did not come away feeling certain one way or another.

Do you really think not enough people working belongs near the top of our list of concerns at the moment? I have heard this line from every conservative I've talked to about this, and it just seems like missing the forest for the trees. On the long list of systemic problems this period and our response to it is in danger of creating, this seems like it belongs on the list, but not close enough to the top to be worth the time discussing it. I'm a lot more worried about the incentives we're manipulating for businesses and investors than for unemployed people.

[0]: https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance

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

#340

Post by rootusrootus »

cs702 wrote: post #71

If many people get very sick simultaneously, they would not only overwhelm hospitals, they would also inflict a disorderly, involuntary shutdown of large swaths of the economy, driven by fear -- instead of the orderly, voluntary shutdown we have at present, driven by government mandate. We all want to avoid that .

On the flip side, NYC just showed us they can suffer through 20% of the population becoming infected at about the same time without their hospitals utterly collapsing.

There is probably some happy medium somewhere. For certain, flattening the curve so much that there are just a few new infections every week is not how we end the lock down.

Post reply on HN