831–840 of 893 posts
San Francisco has only had 18 COVID-19 deaths in the last 30 days, and only 2 in the last week. [0] That seems amazingly low to me. I'm leaning towards thinking non-essential businesses should be opened up there, provided they function under the same restrictions as grocery stores etc. [0] https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “ What’s not sound science about separating people to slow down the spread? It’s the only real option...” no, that’s the nuclear option, not a surgical strike, much less the only option, and based on an insufficiently precise perception of the problem. the mechanism of spread can be crudely described as spitting into each others’ mouths, not standing nearby, touching, or breathing in the same room. with the problem…
In the US they tried the just stay apart message before the stay at home orders and it wasn't working, people still crowded onto beaches in Florida over spring break and into concerts and restaurants all over the country. Ideally yes you'd just say stay apart from people and hand out masks which were getting sold out in a lot of places. Without ordering places closed there's too much incentive for businesses to fudge…
the US, by construction, is all-in on decentralized solutions, and one of its strengths is resisting unwarranted coordinated and centralized action, which is simply an amassment of power, because that's inevitably destabilizing (usually over long time periods, which humans have a hard time properly and understandably rationalizing about).
what's generally warranted, at a national level? defense and international relations. centralizing power is so threatening to the existence of the state itself, we limit it to other mortal threats to the state (international relations are centralized so other nations, say, russians, don't pick apart the states).
we are obligated by our forebearers to apply our ingenuity and our massive resources to finding a solution given the few constraints placed on us by the constitution. we do that by applying our brains, teasing apart the problem, trying solutions, and generally being good people. we don't go running to the apron strings of the nanny state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course we are all speculating on what people want or will do in this situation. But take a hypothetical continuum of unemployment benefits. At which point will your thesis that "people want to work but are unable" switch to "people aren't working because they're being paid way more to not work? The switch will probably be binary at the individual level but will look like a continuum when looking at the population…
My actual point is that this is an ideologically driven distraction, not a real policy debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if the rates stay the same, then all we're accomplishing is slowing the rate at which we reach herd immunity. If herd immunity is the strategy we're pursuing, then we should lift restrictions enough to meet hospital capacity, so we can get to herd immunity as quickly as possible and get the economy back to something approaching normal levels of activity. If the strategy is actually suppression and elimination, th…
The strategy is slowing the spread. Elimination was impossible the day the virus left wuhan. We can't lift restrictions to meet hospital capacity because that is an extremely dangerous gamble, especially when all our numbers on the spread of this disease are bound to be underestimates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, I'm not sure if you're being serious, but there are plenty of ways to gradually re-open. As an example: step 1) re-open elementary schools step 2) re-open middle schools step 3) re-open high schools & colleges step 4) re-open all small businesses that do not result in gatherings of more than 2 people in one place, then 5, then 10, then 20, then 50 I'm not saying that's the right approach but there is certainly mi…
Shouldnt step 4 be actually first one as it has lowest risk of making anything spread? Meanwhile, kids in elementary schools are unable to keep distance from each other and opening them requires reorganization like need for more space, need have them in smaller groups etc.
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.
Instead of gallantly assaulting a straw man, you could acknowledge that lockdowns are not an on/off proposition and that there is almost certainly a better implementation of precautionary restrictions for achieving our goals than what we currently have.
If you feel compelled to defend your own position instead of the one I'm criticizing, go ahead, but I don't share your certainty of there being better possible implementations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this were about personal safety, it'd be an entirely different scenario. The problem is that people's actions here are significantly affecting the safety of other people.
A virtually identical argument could be made for the same thing with the sides swapped. Some people's actions (i.e., those imposing lockdowns and other restrictions) are significantly affecting the safety (i.e., mental health, solvency, etc) of other people. It's a balancing scale, not just an independent bar you're trying to drop to zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wh…
I'm not sure people's behavior will stay changed, but that aside - that presumed "better testing and tracing" is exactly what we are waiting for before opening up. It doesn't exist yet. Reducing restrictions while we still have up to a two week lag on tracking infections means that we won't know if it's going OK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't control the spread until we can test people for the disease. As multiple leaders have stated, the lockdowns need to continue until we build up testing capabilities. For instance in WA, the governor said they are waiting for "widely-available testing, quick isolation for those who may have the virus, identifying people who came into contact with a positive case and getting them into quarantine."
The only country where this seems to have even vaguely worked is South Korea, and the US is already testing much more people for coronavirus than South Korea even in per-capita terms. Has been for a while. Now, the New York Times editorial board has been pushing the idea that you're behind South Korea because more of your tests are coming back positive - but the way they dropped that number is by using stricter socia…
Perhaps you would like to read Dr Fauci talking about why we need more testing capacity before relaxing lockdown rules? https://time.com/5826161/anthony-fauci-covid-19-testing-capa...
Or Gottlieb, Trump's appointee for the FDA? https://www.vox.com/2020/4/14/21219021/scott-gottlieb-corona...
If you are dismissing "all of the US media reporting around testing" as terrible, misleading, partisan nonsense, then you are either looking for a particular opinion to be represented that isn't, or, more likely, you aren't reading all of it.
I hate how the idea of reopening has split down political party lines. This is definitely not the time for partisanship. Now that Republicans have come out as pro-reopening, San Francisco will be the last city to reopen in the country. 0 COVID-19 infections will be too many.
Just over a month ago, you were talking about Japan's reduced rates of COVID-19 cases thanks to their mask-wearing culture compared to western societies. Would you like to revisit that topic before we talk about reopening anything? Or how about Hokkaido facing another wave of cases due to reopening too early? Because it seems to me it's only a matter of time for any country that's currently open to see a spike in cas…