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

Post by rallison » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:18 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #829

rallison wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Granted, there's the IMHE model, which somehow fantastically thinks the virus will mostly be gone in Santa Clara County in mid-May, but it's shown very little agreement with the actual data and is nearly as bad as saying the Easter Bunny will take the virus away. Yeah, that IHME model.. It's unfortunate that it's become the model most people have become acquainted with. It has its uses, but the down-slope has previ…

Yup, but now #16 is no longer true. IMHE has entered the re-opening fray, and is setting target dates based on when they think we'll be down to fewer than 1 infection per million. It seems that it's driving public policy, and it's kinda ridiculous. Decay seems to be very slow even in the jurisdictions with the strictest controls. (I do think the hardest hit jurisdictions may show something close to symmetry). The dis…

Post by hajile » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:40 AM UTC

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…

Post by lazyasciiart » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

rbritton wrote: post #866

lazyasciiart wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. And that's why there is a complex list of things that are being banned or not, that varies by location, instead of simply telling everyone to go inside their house and not come out for three weeks. And significant legal changes, like unemployment eligibility, loan programs, etc. Exactly who are you thinking of, that is advocating to continue lockdowns because they aren't aware of all the tradeoffs involved?

I can't prove he's unaware, but I have yet to hear a single mention of any tradeoffs like these from Washington's governor. Every single rationale he has provided for his actions has solely been based on covid-19 infected and deaths numbers.

Post by mattkrause » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 1:31 PM UTC

usaar333 wrote: post #406

mattkrause wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Post by sanderjd » Wed, Apr 29, 2020, 2:36 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #878

sanderjd wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some topics that are intended purely as distractions, the whole goal is just to get people talking about it. So mission accomplished.

Cura te ipsum, but if that's your remaining issue I won't distract further.