Hacker News Reader

Comment by m0zg | Hacker News Reader

What's "early" and when, in the opinion of Reuters, would it not be too "early"?

Early is the completion of the CDC's 15 day plan which was announced on March 16th: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/15-day-p...

So around March 30th?

I don't know Reuter's opinion of 'too early', but reducing quarantine before the current exponential growth has stopped and before hospitals are not overwhelmed seems like a bad idea.

We're WEEKS before the climax. The rate of spread is almost 35% clearly we will not peak until after April. So 15 days (what Trump proposed) is too early, even 15 weeks would be too early.

You don't know the "rate of spread". We only started mass-testing 5 days ago. What you're seeing now is more accurately called "rate of improvement in testing".

WA (the former epicenter) has stabilized the situation and it gets constant (and decreasing) number of daily cases at the moment. So has CA, it looks like. The United States will behave more or less like 50 different states, save for some closely bunched up states on the East Coast.

Here's an excellent visualization that shows what I'm talking about: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testi...

Until we have different data, this is the data we have. I agree that the rate of increase in confirmed cases probably indicates rate of improvement in testing. But we simply don't know that. You cannot make public health decisions based on hope, assumptions or guesses. You can make public health decisions only based on data, and data indicates we haven't peaked yet. In this case, it's devastating that people in power position have guts to say we can continue business as usual in 15 days.

> make public health decisions based on hope, assumptions or guesses

In the absence of data, which you've acknowledged, that's exactly how decisions are being made now, worldwide.

> even 15 weeks would be too early

Not if you want to avoid starvation and riots. It's not like there's some magical grocery fairy or "the government" putting stuff on the shelves. People have to work to put stuff there.

> Not if you want to avoid starvation and riots. It's not like there's some magical grocery fairy or "the government" putting stuff on the shelves. People have to work to put stuff there.

The proposal has never been complete shut down, this is a cheap strawman argument. I support what CA and NY is doing currently. My state MA issued a similar shelter-in-place order yesterday but the definition of "essential" business is so inclusive that my random software startup qualifies for "essential" business (even though we're all WFH). What needs to be done is picking businesses that are required for the society to function. This includes markets, logistics (UPS, USPS, FedEx etc), hospitals etc. And every other business need to be shut down on gun point.

> In the absence of data

It seems like you misread my comment. There is no absence of data. The data indicates that NY alone is expected to surpass Italy level outbreak in a week. I said there is no data to support the sudden increase in cases is tied to testing. I agree that that's possible, but we have no evidence. So we should act like this is spreading like wildfire, today.

Early, in the article, is a statement about the States rejection of Trump's hinting at loosening social distancing measures, not Reuters' opinion. Though all news is editorial to some extent, choosing to amplify the states' voices here is a choice, and reporting on their resistance to the president is also.

You're over thinking this, or trying to start a controversial argument. That violate's HN's rules.

I think to make a solid argument one way or another, one needs also to take into account medical and scientific opinion regarding the number of people that are going to die in the longer run because of economy stagnation.

Heads up- I made an edit that may make your comment seem off I originally had just responded "Medical and scientific experts" or something to that extent.

Appreciate your comment, it does make a good point. I think the difference is that virus deaths are more predictable than the economy as a whole, so if we know we can move one lever to limit the known damage, the desire to move to a nebulous and often partisan economic approach is a bit concerning for a lot of folks.

I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks from now. Meanwhile healthcare officials are all claiming many months, upwards of longer than a year.

It's not easy, but we must listen to the experts.

We can't afford to shutdown the economy for a year.

It likely won't be. But it'll take a few months for it either to be back to business as usual, or a few months for the economy to adjust to the new reality of takeout and greater ecommerce focus.

You don't. But because the US has no real social safetynet and is reticent to expand unemployment benefits you end up with these kooky binary choices.

This implies a false binary between shutting down the economy and millions of deaths by not isolating.

Look at other countries like Germany, Denmark, and Ireland who are moving to cover wages and providing paid sick leave. Germany is offering companies unlimited loans to prevent them from collapsing.

I am not an expert in economics, but it does seem like competent technocrats are finding paths to maintain the economy while maintaining public health, and it's only in the US where you have a president who doesn't have a strong grasp of economics, or the experts to advise him, who only sees an option of trying to force back the old system, despite all the experts (economic and health!) who are advising the exact opposite.

I apologize for the overtly political comment, as I don't like going there, but this is about Trump's reelection. The economy was going to be the linchpin of his narrative.

Which experts exactly?

Dr. Fauci, for instance. He hasn't wavered on the need for social distancing.

I suspect he's better at economics than an entrepreneur with multiple failed businesses and four bankruptcies.

I'm seeing lots of experts talking about the potential deaths if we don't shut down.

I'm not seeing a lot of experts giving estimates of the ramifications of economic fallout here. Just politicians worried about their reelection and business people worried about their personal fortune.

I'm sure they are out there. But right now they are overshadowed by professional doofs like Larry Ludlow.

Are you seeing experts estimating the number of deaths caused by the economic damage? Because the rate of suicide does tick up when there's economic downturn. I would not be surprised if, at the tail end of this, the downturn causes more deaths in the sub-50 y.o. group due to suicide than due to the virus.

Besides, are experts estimating whether or not it will be easier to deal with the epidemic with an economy that functions or the one that's almost totally shut down, causing supply chain disruption and delays worldwide, and (in a month or two) shortages of goods?

This isn't just about listening to the experts. Ultimately, we need to make a value judgment between saving lives now vs saving the economy. There's no clear answer when a stronger economy saves future lives.

> I heard Trump and his lackeys were talking about dates as early as a few weeks from now

On Fox News, he said "by Easter" (2 1/2 weeks from now)

What you're seeing in his messaging now is called "anchoring". It's a common negotiating tactic, literally the oldest trick in the book, which he uses literally in every single case, nearly always successfully. It baffles me that he's been using it for years and people still don't recognize it and think he's just doing this at random.

We know the US is a big country, and not all of it is affected equally. Epidemiologically it'll likely behave like 50 smaller countries. We also know that if Trump tried to re-open just those parts of the country where per capita infection rates are very low, public would howl.

So what he's doing is proposing a big, unacceptable offer, to then tone it down shortly before the final decision is announced. That way you will all exhale and accept it more easily. So if NY gets much worse, it'll stay shut down. If it levels out, it'll be partially re-opened. If a miracle happens and clinical trials currently underway show efficacy in some drugs, things will be able to be re-opened much further. WA has already leveled off. CA is leveling off as we speak. In other places there's not enough testing to make any conclusions, something that will change this week.

You will see this play out exactly as I described it over the next 2 weeks. Bet on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com