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

631–640 of 893 posts

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

#631

Post by scubbo »

holler wrote: post #609
lazyasciiart wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the argument that protective measures are succeeding and therefore they are no longer necessary. Completely irrational in a scenario where the danger being protected against hadn't gone away.

Where did I "argue" that protective measures are succeeding therefore X? I'm merely stating that you cannot have a society of 350M people completely stop what they're doing for 6 months and not have disastrous consequences. At some point we have to choose whether the lives we're potentially saving after lockdown month X vs the emergent problems from shut down are worth it.

I think they were attributing that argument to the people you described "rebelling", not to you yourself.

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

#632

Post by edoceo »

3solarmasses wrote: post #622
markdown wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna be that guy... given that people are starving, isn't immoral to ask that money be donated to keep shelter dogs alive? Surely they should just be put to sleep, no?

It's only immoral to question the validity of a good cause on the pretense that there's something worse happening out there somewhere...

Hint: there is always something worse somewhere.

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

#633

Post by rootusrootus »

gdilla wrote: post #564
rootusrootus wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And? That was the point. It's better than 40% of the population becoming infected at the same time AND the hospitals totally collapsing.

I'm sorry you misunderstood. ~20% was my upper bound, ~0 the lower bound, and my opinion that we should find a middle ground.

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

#635

Post by rtkwe »

elliekelly wrote: post #506
Enginerrrd wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the goal of slowing down and stalling in hopes of getting a vaccine, better treatments, production to catch up with supply shortages for healthcare facilities, and allowing healthcare facilities to increase capacity, etc.

Has there been any research on survival rates over time? If given the choice of getting COVID-19 today or two months from now I would much prefer the later infection because that’s two more months of doctors learning how best to treat the disease. Even delaying infection by a week seems like it would offer a better fighting chance. The medical community is learning as much as they can as quickly as they can and that…

It’s complicated a bit because of limited hospital capacity and related treatment supplies. If where ever you are is still below saturation later is better than now probably but once your local system is in the band where they’re running out of supplies things can get pretty dire.

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

#636

Post by dehrmann »

usaar333 wrote: post #424
blast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a class divide, unfortunately. The people who are getting hit hardest are the people who were already getting hit hardest. Most of those don't frequent the same internet forums we do.

It's an incredible class divide: * Essential workers (who make less) required to work and get infected at higher rates, both at work and from their essential worker housemates. * We permit anyone (even non-essential workers) to hire a nanny, but let no one drop their kid off at a friend's house. * Deep pocketed businesses like Broadcom can just declare themselves an essential business and mandate employees perfectly…

> Essential workers (who make less) required to work and get infected at higher rates

Honest question: has anyone published infection rates by occupation? Obviously medical staff reusing face masks in NYC are more likely to contract it, but I'm not as sure about grocery store workers, delivery drivers, pickers at Amazon, etc. Some essential workers in food production (think farmers) are probably pretty low-risk.

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

#637

Post by sanderjd »

dllthomas wrote: post #480
dragonwriter wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, unemployment requires you to actively search for work and accept offered employment or you lose benefits. Higher benefits don't create an incentive to voluntarily stay out of work since you can't have them if you do that.

That seems to rely on an assumption that there's no variation in amount or quality of job searching effort, above the minimum required, which might be influenced. It also assumes inability to fake a job search, or sabotage an otherwise legitimate one, which might let an individual so intending to fall below the required minimum. The latter seems questionable, the first seems wrong.

I feel like there's a lot of pedantry in this thread and this topic in general. The point is that people not wanting to work is just so very far from our problem that it is ridiculous to see people harping on it so much. People aren't working because they were furloughed or laid off because aggregate demand is way down, it has nothing to do with the unemployment benefits they're getting. The vast vast majority of those people just want their boss to call them and say "good news! our customers are back! see you tomorrow!".

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

#638

Post by dehrmann »

icelancer wrote: post #414
blast wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a class divide, unfortunately. The people who are getting hit hardest are the people who were already getting hit hardest. Most of those don't frequent the same internet forums we do.

Also sector divide. Small business owners are getting killed. PPP and EIDL will be a drop in the bucket. Mass conglomerations are coming and in 12 months we'll wonder why Amazon and Walmart and other multinational corps bought everything up.

Sector, yes, but I'd think businesses in similar industries with similar cash on hand for their size would do similarly well, regardless of size. As ancestor said, it's a class divide, but it's by sector and cash-on-hand, not so much by size. E.g. J.C. Penney is big-ish, but struggling because of store closures and cash-on-hand.

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

#639

Post by fullshark »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #576
fullshark wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stated goals keep changing, if that were the goal they’d start opening things up.

Why do you think that wouldn't just start a new exponential spread?

Cause they wouldn't open everything up at once and people have shifted their behavior for the foreseeable future. I imagine a series of flattened curves one after another through the end of the year will be what happens as they open up pieces of the economy, presumably with better testing and tracing to control outbreaks (still to be seen).

Bay area new case count is pretty much flat at this point, and I don't see why it would be that much lower in June, the thing is bubbling under the surface and won't go away until a vaccine.

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

#640

Post by tastygreenapple »

rtkwe wrote: post #625
nradov wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original order was never based on any sound science to begin with. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad policy. But it was a faith based policy, not evidence based.

What’s not sound science about separating people to slow down the spread? It’s the only real option for anything like a quarantine with such a long incubation time (and as recently discovered asymptomatic infections) and the absolute lack of tests we had at the beginning of this outbreak... It’s simple math that reducing the number of people in contact with each other would reduce the number of people that got infect…

There's no way you can say that all the open/close decisions were analytically/objectively supported, and you can tell by the selective (rather than universal) 'social distancing' enforcement that the authorities know it doesn't really matter. I saw so many people congregating on the golden gate bridge the other day, yet, the authorities shut down San Mateo county parks for violations of social distance that were much less flagrant than the ones at Golden Gate.

Consider how quickly they moved to shut down gun retailers, they didn't show that animus to abortion clinics. Or in New York, some mosques remain open for prayer but the mayor has specifically threatened to permanently close Synagogues and Churches that didn't immediately submit to the mayor's edict.

Post reply on HN