The San Francisco Bay Area shelter-in-place order is being extended through May • Hacker News Board

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

#781

Post by catherd » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:29 AM UTC

lazyasciiart wrote: post #566

catherd wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People keep saying that, but I haven't heard of any clear examples of actual sick people who got it again, just positive tests that seem to be within the error bands for the tests. Not a doctor, this is not a rhetorical question: Shouldn't we have those 2nd-time sick people by now? Shouldn't the null hypothesis be that immunity works like most other colds? Masks weren't "proven to be effective" until well after any r…

The null hypothesis is exactly that it acts like other coronaviruses, which don't seem to create immunity in people. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/27/1000569/how-long...

This is an informative link. Summary:

- of 4 coronavirus strains in one study (all the type that cause common colds), none gave long term immunity after exposure

- of those 4 strains, getting re-infected multiple times in the same year is common

- each person tends to have a consistent reaction (weak/strong symptoms the first time through predict a similar experience in any later infections)

- infection severity tends to run in families

- 6 years after SARS, doctors found T-cells, but no B-cells in humans . Mice re-infected with SARS were protected from the worst effects or SARS by memory T-cells.

Specifically related to covid-19:

- macaque monkeys were infected by covid-19 and exposed again 4 weeks after recovery. none developed symptoms or had detectable virus in their throats

- no reported cases of re-infection in Wuhan in the 5 months since the epidemic started

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

#782

Post by DrAwdeOccarim » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:39 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #768

adventured wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The munis and banks all have a direct IV funding line from the Federal Reserve, they mostly have absolutely nothing to worry about. The gloves are entirely off for this one, the Fed can snap up trillions of dollars in toxic mortgages if needed, they've got the greenlight across the board for any and all actions. The Fed keeps lowering the thresholds (and they'll end up doing a lot more than that in the coming months;…

I work for a fortune 500 financial institution. After what happened during the last crash we had a policy of 365 days of liquidity. So far this time we haven't used the Fed firehose of $, but according to our CEO the Fed has asked us to start using it. I don't understand why the Fed would ask us to use something we don't need.

So that companies that need to use it don't feel stigmatized, and subsequently punished by the market.

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

#783

Post by user5994461 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:40 AM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #659

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will do the same thing homeowners will do; not pay. I hope nobody on here owns munis or bank stocks. Or REITs.

Depends on the REIT. Some do malls, some do apartments, some do hospitals. I'd expect a residential REIT to see a one to two quarter drop in dividends by maybe 25%. I'm having a hard time justifying a longer term dividend drop or valuation drop because there's still a housing shortage in the US. Unless more people move in with their parents, or something...

>> I'm having a hard time justifying a longer term dividend drop or valuation drop because there's still a housing shortage in the US

Real estate is all about location.

Major cities have a housing shortage and will continue to be able to find some tenants. Rent is likely to go down or stabilize for some time.

Small town will be decimated. All the jobs that are disappearing are not coming back, people will have no money for rent and there are no other tenants immigrating in.

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

#784

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:45 AM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #693

ashtonkem wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the rational calculus, yes. But humans have a really hard time balancing suffering today against hypothetical suffering tomorrow, especially when successful intervention makes it appear like the problem was never there in the first place.

That's an interesting presupposition, entirely unconfirmed by data.

It's true almost by definition. Actions sufficient to mitigate a low-probability, high-impact event will seem like complete overreaction for people who can't do this calculation - which is most of them. After all, lots of effort and sacrifice happened, and there was no damage!

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

#785

Post by user5994461 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:47 AM UTC

the_watcher wrote: post #341

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…

What evidence is there that the SIP is limited in effectiveness? The existing evidence I am aware of is starkly contra that assertion. Anecdotes of seeing people too close together in the park are not evidence of an ineffective SIP.

Here have a look https://coronaprogress.com

I made a map where you can move day by day to see the progression. The lockdown has minimal effects, cases have been increasing steadily for a while in every country, seemingly as quick as there are tests.

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

#786

Post by throwaway0a5e » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:57 AM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #674

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the surface there's not much constitutional protection for engaging in business but there would be some serious schadenfreude if Wickard v. Filburn showed up to defend individuals from state prosecution for once. edit: To expand on this, for an individual's right to do something to be protected from the states that right must be protected under the 14th amendment. Over the years the court has found that the 1st, 2…

Dumb question: what did Wickard add to the interpretation of the commerce clause that wasn't already pretty obvious after Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. US?

Basically the intrastate effect of Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. v. US was said to be constitutional as a byproduct of regulating interstate commerce. Importantly the former is regulating commercial activity whereas Wickard v. Filburn expands the scope of the commerce clause to purely intrastate non-commercial activity that don't affect interstate commerce and would only affect interstate commerce if everyone did it.

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

#787

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 10:58 AM UTC

edoceo wrote: post #632

3solarmasses wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are many bad things happening everywhere. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stack-rank them, in order to allocate funds effectively. There's diminishing returns to everything[0]. As you throw money at problem #1, it becomes more and more expensive to make a marginal improvement, so eventually, it swaps places with some other problem in the ranking.

There are many criteria you could use for making such ranking of problems (a popular one is minimizing dollars per lives saved, or dollars per QALY added). Living in a free society means people are free to decide how much (if anything all) they want to spend on charitable causes, and on which ones. But in one's individual spending, it's worth to think about how to get maximum "bang for your buck", in terms of alleviating suffering.

---

[0] - By coincidence, this is on the front page right now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22993486.

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

#788

Post by michaelt » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 11:06 AM UTC

markdown wrote: post #770

sdoering wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It just isn't following the "whataboutism" logic. Following this we could say: As there are always young able people in need, why care for old or disabled people who doo not contribute to society and only cost society's money? Why "donate" taxes for care facilities and such unnecessary stuff?

You're taking this too far. Stop trying to do that. There is an island on which there are hungry people and hungry dogs. There is a limited pool of donor funds. The fact that there are people asking for money for the dogs before all the people on that little island have full bellies is just sad. The dogs will feel no pain from being put to sleep. Nobody can, will, or wants to even suggest that the children be put to…

You might enjoy reading the utilitarian philosophy work of Peter Singer [1]

A lot of charity donation is based on feelings rather than calculations about saved lives. Otherwise there would only be one charity, and it'd be distributing malaria nets and deworming tablets in Africa.

In my experience, if someone donates $20 to animals in response to lowpro's post, that's not money subtracted from their fixed charity budget that would otherwise have gone to humans. That's money subtracted from their household budget, that otherwise would have been spent on hobbies and bills. People who have fixed charity budgets simply don't donate from them in response to social media posts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_You_Can_Save

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

#789

Post by in_cahoots » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 11:21 AM UTC

thelean12 wrote: post #745

in_cahoots wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcoholics can go to their local Wal-Mart, Target, or grocery store. They don’t need specialty liquor stores. What about weed dispensaries, are they essential? More essential than dentists, pediatrician visits, and the accompanying vaccinations? Because the latter have all been closed. How are construction workers essential when gardeners aren’t? ‘Essential’ is in the eyes of the beholder, it seems.

I'm not convinced you're arguing in good faith, but I'll dispel the misinformation for others: In the bay area dentists and healthcare professionals are exempt from the order. My dentist is open for emergencies 7am-7pm. If your dentist is closed, you can certainly call and complain, but it's not part of the bay area order. I'm not sure about vaccination schedules because it's hard to google it without talk about a co…

My source for this is my own life. My town (San Mateo county) is still bringing in construction workers to build a playground. My pediatrician and dentist have both closed for non-emergency purposes, as has my physical therapist. And you didn’t even address my point about liquor stores - read the order from San Mateo county and see if you think their rationale makes sense.

I’m not sure why you think I’m arguing in bad faith just because I happen to disagree with you, but I’d appreciate you discussing the substance of my claims and not your interpretation of my intent.

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

#790

Post by doliveira » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 11:23 AM UTC

nostrebored wrote: post #761

doliveira wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know enough about psychology to Google the exact term, but let's not be so pedantic as to pretend it is not at least a plausible assumption.

No, this is a stance that's completely unsubstantiated, with the obvious tie in to COVID-19 that's also unsubstantiated.

Can you point to a study about this? In Bayesian terms most people would put the prior probability in favor of his common sense hypothesis. And you just have to Google for "psychology of risk perception" to get a few more studies in favor of it.