Tesla is not essential business as defined in the Alameda County Health Order
twitter.com
twitter.com
Shelter in place is about preventing person-to-person spread of the disease through direct contact or via intermediary such as a bench, chair or physical currency.
COVID-19 is not going to spread from the plant to your house without some kind of transmission mechanism.
Shelter in place gives time for current cases to go symptomatic & become traceable, among other benefits. Testing only effectively started last week, and is still a joke compared to what other countries with outbreaks of this level are doing.
I'm suspecting Tesla is employing sock puppets, or people with too much invested in Tesla, are overly eager to void the shelter-in-place effort for an arbitrary 10K people.
There have been successes with wholesale testing in towns in Italy but those populations are small enough to test while everyone is quarantined for a short period. Then when the quarantine ends the disease will spread anyway thanks to false negatives or new imports.
EDIT: The earlier coverage included this quote: "What’s essential about automobile manufacturing in the midst of a viral pandemic? “That’s a good question,” said spokesman Ray Kelly, promising more information would be forthcoming. “We’re in uncharted waters right now.”"
There are different ways to interpret that, but they seemingly were not confident at the time. Still a strange way to "correct" it, though.
The UAW seems to be trying to get Michigan/Midwest plants shutdown, and of course the southern plants aren’t union.
I'm not going to comment on if they should shut down. With the right provision it is safer to go to work than stay home bored and tempted to go out and do something. this assumes many things not all that I'm aware of, and they might or might not be possible in the factory
Eh? Who cares? Other manufacturers also have a downstream.
It is unique for
1) Being in California
2) Being in an area of California under a quarantine order
To be fair to the county, finding that perfect balance of what is essential and what is not is impossible. I can't blame them for coming down on this side of things.
Why do we need to be fair to a blatant rule breaker in a health crisis?
I'm not on board with that.
That's not really relevant, because these essential services are open because they are, well, "essential", not because they are safer. A hospital is the most dangerous place to catch the virus now, but nobody suggests shutting down the hospital, because we need it right now. We don't need a new car now.
No. No he doesn't. Privilege has its privileges.
Odds are Tesla wins in court and the authorities also know this, so won't actually do anything because they don't want the precedent.
I'm not clear on how the Sheriff can act without a warrant or something, but sure he can tweet.
On another site any comment or story that even seems negative is swarmed by fans there to tell you how it is.
I asked a question a few times out of honest curiosity...the fans were there to tell me all about how the thing I didn't say was wrong and that I was surely a troll. Nobody bothered to answer.
That assumption is the lie at the heart of so much of human, especially American folly that I don't even know where to start. It isn't even an assumption, it is a belief. It is a belief that no one will change but those with power will gladly abuse. Please grow up.
It's disappointing technologists interested in building things doesn't get the community aspect of that, but not my fight.
The lockdown is essentially asking the younger generations to make a massive sacrifices to support the older generation that has demonstrated very little willingness to make sacrifices to support the younger generation (accept a slightly lower standard of living to fight climate change).
There are a lot of impoverished older generation people. No cash, no house or no liquidity, tiny pension if that.
Those people are seriously at risk, and there is nothing they could have done for younger people along the lines you have described.
Do we treat the impoverished old like their lives don't matter as much, let them die because they happen to be in the same arbitrary statistical grouping as other, unrelated old people you feel could have sacrificed more?
Couldn't you come up with a fairer statistical grouping for "could have sacrificed more" at least, e.g. the rich?
The younger generation is not a homogeneous group either.
Among them are a lot of vulnerable young. People with respiratory problems, reduced lung function, among many other conditions, or lacking physical or mental capacity to look after themselves. Also every young person who needs hospital care for things like dialysis, when hospitals are unable to provide it.
Do we just not care about the physically vulnerable young either?
The lockdown is about protecting an extremely large number of vulnerable or unlucky people of all kinds. It's that simple.
Some of those are children, some young, more middle-aged, and most old, although we are currently not sure how the statistics pan out for middle-aged and below when hospitals are severely overrun.
Something used in public policy is Quality Adjusted Life Years. An 80 years has a much smaller expected lifespan than a 10 year old, so something that reduces the 80 year old's expected lifespan by e.g. 2 years could be compared to the effect that poverty or environmental damage has on the 70+ expected years of the 10 year old's life.
>Some of those are children, some young, more middle-aged, and most old, although we are currently not sure how the statistics pan out for middle-aged and below when hospitals are severely overrun.
We have this from the Wuhan numbers, where hospital beds were completely insufficient at least for the first month.
1. You've got it flipped. I'm totally for everyone slowing down, some more than others, in exchange for saving lives. Most of the jobs going away will be back soon after - people will eat out again etc - so that is not much in the longview compared to family members needlessly dying. There are fragile companies going bust -- for example, in the bay area, restaurants need to perform well to survive, so this accelerated the death of a few already. For most small businesses, a slow downs for a few weeks isn't that bad or uncoverable by emergency loans... unless you were already doomed. There'll be all sorts of other effects, like many VC-fueled co's not being able to use the sales/marketing $ injection to artificially increase q2 growth as much, but no tears here.
2. Fed gov can & should be doing more than giving money to oil companies to temper indiv + SMB effects of the freeze. The continued shitty federal gov response here has meant random rushed local county decisions. In contrast, other nations have mandated things like rent pauses as part of their enforcement. I've worked where a lot of business is effectively barter - there's surprising slack in the US business world with landlords and other obligations in practice. That's not guaranteed, and megacorps, banks, and some individuals (I'm guessing like those on this thread advocating breaking the community isolation) can be inhumane, so important for strong govs to address. Not too late, and you'd be surprised.