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

401–410 of 893 posts

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

#401

Post by wpietri »

walterbell wrote: post #396
wpietri wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could argue it the other way from the same data. Given that public health officials jumped on it early and got us such a low death rate, maybe we should keep trusting their judgment and let them decide when it's safe to reopen.

Unless the data shows that states/countries which did not lock down have almost the same cumulative health outcomes, minus the voluntary economic destruction.

Yes, more data would obviously change the discussion. And that more data could show all sorts of things.

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

#402

Post by adventured »

lalaithion wrote: post #336
rayiner wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 activ…

> But is anyone seriously advocating keeping a $600/week around after the quarantine?

Yes. Or something close to it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-would-receive-2000...

"The Emergency Money for the People Act, introduced by Reps. Tim Ryan and Ro Khanna, would give $2,000 a month to Americans over the age of 16 who make less than $130,000 a year."

"The payments would continue for at least six months and would last until unemployment falls to pre-coronavirus levels."

That would probably only cost a few trillion dollars. It'll take a decade to get back to pre-virus unemployment levels, and they know that. It took nearly a decade to get to those super low unemployment levels after the great recession, which was not nearly so bad as this situation.

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

#404

Post by esoterica »

irq11 wrote: post #349
the_watcher wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention. Citation absolutely required. While there is definitely a ton of uncertainty around what causes spread, the one thing that there seems to be broad agreement on is that sustained time in a shared pocket of air with an infected person is the most likely transmission vector.

No, that’s not the way it works. If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around. Hypotheses don’t count. Provide actual scientific proof. You’re ruining people’s lives.

The virus is tanking the economy, not the lockdown. Air travel is down 97% even though they are no laws against flying places. You can lift the lockdown if you want, but if people are too afraid to board planes and go to restaurants and bars, you are not going to magically bounce back to 4% unemployment and 2% GDP growth overnight.

> If you want to take people’s livelihoods away from them, you have to justify the seizure, not the other way around.

Conversely, you could argue that if you want to take actions that risk killing hundreds of thousands of people, then the onus is on you to prove that your actions won't cost hundreds of thousands of lives. You can't claim that enacting a lockdown requires scientific proof but lifting one does not, when the potential consequences for the latter are even higher than the former.

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

#405

Post by brianwawok »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #225
wgerard wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem at this point is two-fold: 1) Schools are about to be done for the academic year, so they're effectively shut down until August anyway. It wouldn't make sense to re-open schools for less than a month. 2) For better or for worse, we've conditioned people to be wary of contact with other people. A movie theater that's 10% full is still hemorrhaging money, perhaps worse than if it was closed entirely…

> 1) Schools are about to be done for the academic year, so they're effectively shut down until August anyway. It wouldn't make sense to re-open schools for less than a month. Though it could make sense to re-open them a month early, health concerns permitting. They already got a "summer break" and can make up for lost time

My local schools have already called off the rest of the school year. At least for us, that horse has already left the barn.

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

#406

Post by usaar333 »

mattkrause wrote: post #362
usaar333 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's new cases though, isn't it? I was summing over the entire "tree" to get the total instead. If R0=2 (each person infects two more), you have 1 case at time zero, two after the first time step, and four after the next, but the total number of cases is 1+2+4=7, not 2^2. It's true that people are discharged from the hospital eventually (one way or another), so there's a little extra room from that, but not much.

> It's true that people are discharged from the hospital eventually (one way or another), so there's a little extra room from that, but not much.

No, you need to account for that. We're at steady-state to decreasing hospitalization already (that is at r=1, increase = decrease).

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

#407

Post by dpau »

irq11 wrote: post #328
01100011 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a decision for those in government, but personally I see it as a balance of risk vs reward. There is a high risk of infection and relatively little benefit. It is probably better, for society as a whole, to pay the unemployment payments and have long hair for a while. Shampoo doesn't remove the virus from one's lungs or exhalations. I'm not sure what benefit shampoo would have over, say, gloves. PPE is good bu…

” There is a high risk of infection and relatively little benefit. It is probably better, for society as a whole, to pay the unemployment payments and have long hair for a while.” Citation absolutely required . We’re talking about people’s lives here, and there’s zero evidence for this kind of intervention. Everyone says they’re “listening to the science” to make these kinds of decisions, but where is it? Why can’t w…

> Particularly in a place like San Francisco, where there have been 1,400 cases total and 23 deaths. It’s simply irrational now, and a lot closer to virtue signaling than anything with a scientific basis.

I live in a state with a very low number of cases and deaths, much less than SF. We began the process of reopening today. Which would be fine if our borders were sealed, if quarantine for travelers was enforced, if our systems for contact tracing and testing were adequate. However, none of these requirements have been met. It is only a matter of time before this state, which relies heavily on tourism, sees a rebound of cases and we are once back in the situation we were in a month ago.

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

#408

Post by greendave »

greendude29 wrote: post #354
greendave wrote: post #144

The problem is that the shelter-in-place rule is already limited in effectiveness due to a very lengthy list of exceptions plus many people not observing the spirit of the rule. Compliance will only drop over time as people see that 1) Their actions are having no obvious impact and 2) There is no clear end in sight. If the primary goal of extending the order is to give local governments time to build out infrastructu…

> The problem is that the shelter-in-place rule is already limited in effectiveness I've mostly read that the "control" we have over covid-19 now is due to the SIP. Can you source your claim?

Perhaps badly worded on my part. Limited != none. Clearly SIP has bent the curve. But new cases that are being reported now were transmitted well after SIP came into effect, i.e. are happening despite SIP. And absent other policy changes, we should continue to expect to see more of them. What changes we do see are in the other direction - more traffic, more outside activity, etc.

Practically, increase (or non-decrease) in weekly number of cases in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties suggests as much[1].

[1] https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/

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

#409

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #303
anm89 wrote: post #221

The reddit hive mind has become terrifying. It has seriously had a tangible effect on my faith in humanity. I never got onto Twitter but I assume it's about the same.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22999983 . Edit: Nothing particularly wrong with it! It's just a meta-fire which should be allowed to burn in some scrub somewhere.

[deleted]

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

#410

Post by Snoozle »

ultrarunner wrote: post #245
anm89 wrote: post #221

The reddit hive mind has become terrifying. It has seriously had a tangible effect on my faith in humanity. I never got onto Twitter but I assume it's about the same.

I intentionally moved from reddit to HN after this same specific realization. After a few years it seemed like reddit would be a good place for hyper local info on covid, but I quickly saw the same effect— misanthropy in the face of so many people trying to do the best they could for others during hard times. It’s off topic here, but I seriously wonder what specifically caused reddit to adopt the largely toxic cultur…

A few things I try to remember about Reddit as someone who has used the site for 10+ years:

1. I keep getting older, and Reddit doesn't just stay the same, they get younger. There are a lot of kids on there from age 10-16, and these kids don't just stick to Teenagers and Memes; they will actively comment and discuss politics, capitalism, society, etc.

2. Upvotes mean agree, downvotes mean disagree. In this way, any opinion with even a slight majority will always triumph. If I took 45 Redditors who were liberals and 35 Redditors who were conservative, and both used the upvote and downvote buttons on opinions, then every liberal comment would have +10 and every conservative comment would have -10, which amplifies the 10 person difference by 20. Every opinion you see is one that the majority of the user base agrees with or likes.

3. In both age and other demographics, redditors lean towards young, liberal males with low/no incomes. This causes a lot of bias against certain schools of thought, the role of government in our lives, and people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum - old, conservative (women?) people with high income. It's just a product of the site demographics.

4. The last point I'll make - since Reddit creates this echo chamber of a certain set of ideas and opinions, people who have differing opinions tend to stop posting those opinions or participating in discussion regarding those opinions. What you're left with are the people who are actively frustrated/righteous/feel like wasting time who are spouting against the grain opinions, making those opinions seem even worse to most Redditors than they already were perceived. (For example, if you were wanting to discuss how great you thought Donald Trump was on Reddit, you were most likely not looking for a productive and informative discussion)

Post reply on HN