We NEED contact tracing so we can dynamically quarantine.
We NEED enforcement of the new rules(6ft, masks) because they're not being followed where I'm at.
We NEED financial support for those who are immuno compromised or those who have to take care of the immuno compromised.
How should those things be enforced in your opinion?
The easiest way would be to hire inspectors to go around and inspect places during business hours and close them down if they're not in compliance.
That or a federal jobs program of "safety enforcer" paid for by the fed and placed in every business of X size or whatever. The former seems more likely.
California and Washington are both running massive deficits due to their harsh quarantine measures and will literally be out of money in a few months. Many cities are already running out of money.
Seattle, San Francisco, LA, NYC... all are heading towards bankruptcy or massive layoffs.
Many cops and teachers are about to be laid off. Prisons will be releasing prisoners to make budgets meet.
And here people are talking about a whole new squad of police that do nothing but enforce distancing and mask-wearing. With what money?
https://www.usmayors.org/2020/04/14/cities-report-pandemic-c...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bay-Area-cities-...
https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-la-cities...
This is like the old line about education ("if you think it's expensive, try ignorance").
There isn't any such thing as "ending lockdown" without certain cooperative measures. Either we'll take the necessary collective steps to control spread and coordinate recovery behavior... or we won't, and we'll have both the uncontrolled spread and the second order uncoordinated responses including large portions of people sitting out economic participation in order to manage personal risk.
Maybe it'll take some kind of civil enforcement to do this. Maybe most people will cooperate.
Maybe the federal government will lend local governments money to help. Or it won't, or it will, but will come with stipulations designed to weaken the ability of local institutions to act counter to partisan ends of those in control of the Senate and executive.
But anyone on team "end lockdown" should hope there is cooperation, and enough enforcement to encourage it at the margins. And if funding is a problem, then private and public entities alike at least in theory have some incentive to come up with a way to solve the problems that need to be solved to support higher levels of activity.
False. People in AZ are waiting in their cars for hours to get tested.
Also YMMV. I did not have to wait at all for my test. I made an appointment at sonoraquest labs (which I believe is part of lab corps) and I was the only person there at my slot other than the staff.
I did have to “wait” in the sense that I scheduled my appointment for the next day after calling them.
If the answer is no to any of those questions then there's not enough testing to help prevent the spread of disease. Seeing there's no meaningful herd immunity to the virus and no vaccine available if there's no controls on infections the hospitalization rate of the virus will overwhelm hospitals.
The reason for shutdown orders is to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. COVID-19 is really infectious and has a high hospitalization rate. These two factors combined can very quickly cause ICU resources to hit capacity. Once that happens people die at even higher rates than otherwise. A lot of people in Italy died because ICU resources hit capacity.
You can test a million people today but unless all of those people are quarantined from the rest of the population you'll need to test them again tomorrow as they may have become infected in the meantime. Even if COVID-19's mortality and hospitalization rate was low it's still a serious illness and mass infections would still shut businesses down. A majority of causes people are down for weeks with the disease. They're not going to be able to work so if you have a cluster at a meat packing plant it'll still be effectively shut down.
I have one of these and have sanity checked it against another mouth thermometer I have from CVS and the readings agree with one another.
(There have been reports of Chinese-made thermometers lying about their readings)
Looks like there are also a bunch on amazon that will arrive to me anywhere between two days from now and a week from now.
In all seriousness, I've been really disappointed with people who I respect who have consistently belittled anyone who questions the prudence of the lockdown. "Covidiot" is thrown around indiscriminately.
The other thing that has surprised me is how many people use absolute numbers rather than per-capita numbers in order to prove their points. I even found Neil deGrasse Tyson doing this on Twitter.
Regarding absolute numbers, in the early phase when we had a 2-3 day doubling rate, per capita numbers didn't matter very much because you only needed ~2 days for it to double, so any difference in per capita cases saw that gap closed pretty quickly. So for instance, I saw people downplaying the danger by saying "sure Italy has it bad, but the US has 5x the population". That missed the point a bit. It didn't take that long for the US to become the leader in absolute number of cases, then a bit more for it to exceed per capita rates of Italy. Probably both would have happened sooner had there not been any intervention.
It's just that opening the economy has also become politicized and the armchair social media "experts" have begun chanting "OPEN UP!" without any sort of nuance repeatedly multiple times a day and overwhelming the conversations and suggestions of the reasonable folks with data. So, by default, the initial reaction is assume someone making that suggestion is they're more likely to be an emotional appeal than a rational discussion partner.
I think this accusation is equally applicable for politicians though. There has been precious little nuance in blanket lockdowns that don’t acknowledge how vastly different in risk different activities are (e.g. sunbathing in a park vs clubbing). Seems to me like the shouts of “OPEN UP!” are simply a response to the knee-jerk “SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!” that everyone has had to live with for the last few months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Dona...
Instead of leading the people, the authorities are fighting with them.
If someone actually has questions, they should ask them. Otherwise if they don't have the courage to own their political position, I don't consider them part of the conversation.
"I don't believe this long video I just posted. But it does make you think." No, I'm pretty sure you believe and are promoting said video.
"I'm just asking questions here." No, you clearly have an agenda and opinion and want to bait others who are unsure into a discussion with you.
For the rare folks with honest questions, we can have a real explanation. For honest people who want to discuss, we can have a discussion.
But being coy and "asking" when you already have a position you won't actually change seems extremely disingenuous.
Either we lock down, mitigate the effects of our already broken systems, or open up and accept that we will be killing citizens under "acceptable losses"
Absolute numbers are important,those are facts. This isn't a routine disease society has accepted,it can be contained and prevented,per capita does not help guage resource needs.
But if you do start a lockdown you can't half-ass it because that would literally be the worst option. The markets are ok because the shutdown is intentional. The markets would not be ok if spending and revenue loss was a result of people being fearful and panicky.the goal know should be a smooth and quick recovery at the right time, not a rough,rushed and messy one.
In the US, we're "opening back up" while many states are hitting daily records. Our lockdowns were a disaster and "opening back up" is going to cause an explosion in cases.
If our lockdowns had been done right we would be able to reopen the economy now with little risk
That was in fact the prediction for Georgia, see for example the expert predictions here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/infectious-disease-expe...
Of course it turns out not to have actually happened: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/georgia-coronavi...
With that said, my own reading prior to this point has suggested we'd see the uptick starting in this coming week, through the next two weeks.
The panel of experts estimated about 1k/day during the week ending May 16, ranging 579/day to 2292/day.
And while so far there aren't that many cases reported today, the data isn't complete due to the lag in testing results. In fact the lag is for 14 days. So we're still in a wait and see point.
NYC is about the only hospital system that came close to being overwhelmed and even they made almost no use of the temporary hospitals.
The record numbers of cases we see now coincides with record levels of testing- with such limited availability of testing prior to the lockdown, the majority of cases- those not needing hospitalization- were never counted.
Comparing it to someplace like Taiwan or Singapore doesn't make any sense.
Comparing to those countries doesn't make much sense either because US is much wealthier. We should be doing far better than both, and we're not.
In the US, any and every death of someone who had the virus, and many who did not, are still counted among the death tolls. The recent case of the guy who died from alcohol poisoning comes to mind, though I personally know of others who died from other causes, and were counted even though they hadnt been tested.
Conversely, there is good reason to be skeptical of China's accounting as well- both due to government interference and the simple fact that they were not able to reliably test the majority of cases.
If US has twice the test positive rate as another, they're only testing half the cases.
The fact is no matter what metric you look at, the US is doing worse with our response than almost anywhere else.
And we don’t know how China is really ever doing about anything. We need to stop confusing statements from China with transparency.
Not to mention the human toll of quarantine- I live surrounded by a few hundred acres of forest, my cousin in a studio apartment. My daily life has hardly changed since I also work from home. She lives in or near paris, I think, and couldn't go 10 feet past her apartment door without a permit, and mostly got that only for groceries. Even still, she managed to catch it (or a similar disease, since she was refused testing).
Some people on HN love to hate on rural life, but I honestly wouldn't have it any other way.
I'm a broken record talking about how nytimes/etc. will always pick the more sensational data to sell ads, and how it doesn't matter for them if they're wrong (and how they actually have a financial incentive to be wrong). Maybe it is all just an accident though.
It’s one of the things that public health officials have been warning about pretty consistently: as testing increases, positive cases will go up, but that shouldn’t be looked at as a bad thing.
Number of new cases per day is steadily increasing every week! A month ago the daily new cases were half what they are this week
I said this elsewhere but this is something health officials have specifically warned against. Yes case counts are going up, but that is because testing is increasing. The metric that matters is the testing positive rate.
Basically by following absolute numbers, and commenting on them as if there's a failure on the state's part, you're punishing states for increasing testing.
Is it any wonder? Look at the comments here. Look at guys like Elon Musk breaking quarantine for economic reasons and getting praised for it. Conspiracies abound.
This didn't happen in less partisan countries. Like absolutely everything else in the US, the lockdown became a political issue, for and against it.
Where I'm from, everyone took it seriously and in a matter of weeks we got down to ZERO active cases. Then again, we don't hate people who have different politics.
When your president is one of the richest men in the world its hard to convince leadership to shut down the economy.
And the US is pretty much unique with the whole "corporation is a person" nonsense
We're still in quarantine in the Bay Area and I'm seeing _more_ people not wearing masks or social distancing.
The next thing people need to hear is "quarantine is over" when they're associating quarantine with COVID still being "around." Once that happens, it's game over; I think a majority of people will just go back to normal without being careful.
Not that I don't want quarantine over but I just don't think most people understand the message it would send.
You seem to know better than the experts.. not sure what qualifies you to believe that.
So for every person who puts forth their strategy I get curious, why? So here's a few questions to you.
Can you explain your position?
Can you tell me your social context, what state and city are you in? What is the opinion of your friends and family?
Did you weigh the numbers for predicted economic impact and predicted deaths and health issues and contrast them? Did you consider factors such as that even pre-lockdown the economy was slowing and restaurants closing because a lot of consumers voluntarily avoided putting themselves at risk?
Without you putting any answers to these, or specifying your qualifications, the amount of time you spent thinking about the problem, the edge cases, etc. I can't trust your judgement anymore then I'd trust a coin flip.
South Korea recently reopened bars and clubs, and just shut them down again, because masks and voluntary social distancing aren't enough for this virus.
Do you think Americans are more, less, or equally capable of voluntary compliance to this sort of thing than Koreans?
[1] I'm comfortable enough to order takeout at the moment. If we go back to exponential spread, I'm going right back to bunkering down, and not spending a single dollar on anything but groceries.
What makes you think that the initial surge will stop? The reason the initial surge in March stopped was because we closed everything down.
What mechanism is going to stop the surge from lifting lockdown? What has changed since March, and why is it enough to bring R to 1?
Why didn't South Korea think the same way that you did, and just decided to let infections surge, and see if they stop on their own?
Same as the first -- voluntary social distancing. I think you missed my point, which is that I don't believe the government is really in control, at least not in western democracies. I think people are choosing for themselves to isolate, and I think they will continue to adjust that decision based on their perceived risk.
I think there would be a surge at first because there is some pent up demand for things people feel like they need, or they really want to do and they don't perceive a strong risk. So these people would cause a surge, it would hit the news, and most people would then panic themselves right back indoors, then a month or so later we'd do it all again.
Someone released a study a few days ago suggesting that if we could actually achieve nearly universal compliance with mask wearing in public indoor spaces (I think they said 80%) then a slight improvement over our current masks (better than the homemade cloth or disposable surgical masks, not necessarily N95 level though), we could push R0 below 1.0 without really doing anything else different from normal everyday activities. I don't think we can expect that compliance rate, though.
If your thing is going to bars, and all the bars are closed, you're not 'choosing' to self-isolate[1]. I mean, yes, you are choosing to stay home instead of aimlessly wandering the streets, but most people don't care to do that. If the reason they want to leave their home is not there, they won't leave the home.
Re-open the bars, and suddenly all those people who 'chose' to self-isolate will start 'choosing' to go out to drink and mingle.
Also, you are vastly underestimating the number of people who, for good reasons, or bad, don't give a shit about their personal risk. They will be actively getting people who are actively trying to minimize personal risk sick, because the latter can't avoid essential social interactions.
When your personal risk includes liability for anyone else you get sick, I'll be more than happy to let you frame this entire conversation as personal risk. Until then, what people taking 'personal risk' are doing is shirking personal responsibility.
[1] The bar owner is 'choosing' to comply with the shutdown order, but that's because his personal risk[2] profile is completely different to that of his patron. His personal risk profile has to account for externalities caused by operating his business. He can be fined, lose his liquor license, etc. His patron's doesn't care about those externalities, because when the patron's irresponsible behaviour gets someone else sick, nobody goes after the patron.
[2] The fact that you're even talking about personal risk is why re-opening can't work in America. This is, and has never been about personal risk. Personal risk isn't something that legislature needs to control. The problem with epidemics is social risk, and patrons are in no position to accurately access it.
This is not a good faith argument, why are you trying to frame it as some kind of moral good vs evil dichotomy?
We've known about masks and temperature checks since the beginning of the pandemic, and every reasonable scenario requires them. We can check on the progress of thermometer production and mask availability.
I have a hunch that developing the capacity to implement your proposal will give us enough time -- a few months at least -- to see how voluntary self isolation is working in the regions that are already ending the lock down.
Especially when lifting the lockdown, I would have lifted lockdowns strictly for people who have no violations during the lock down. And prioritize scheduling based on age and medical exceptions. Maybe have hours of the day strictly for vulnerable people with hard restrictions and a separate time for people that have already recovered.
This seems like a missed opportunity for a "service" business that everybody seems to be clamoring for.
There is no avoiding reopening. General availability of vaccines will take a very long time, simply because manufacturing 1 billion of anything is nontrivial. It is simply not feasible to ask people to put aside their personal lives and business for 18-24 months. We can do so reasonably safely with clear common sense guidance, without vacillation on the effectiveness of masks or distance or precautions.
In the least we need to stop issuing blanket orders that apply over broad geographies like entire states. The risks are different for different people and different circumstances. For instance, the infection fatality rate (IFR) is so low (less than 0.1%) for those under 50 that they should be permitted to go about their business. I am very much in favor of individuals assessing the risks to themselves in choosing which activities they participate in. From https://reason.com/2020/04/15/people-not-politicians-will-de...:
> Who has the best information to weigh these risks, the costs and benefits of each trip out versus staying home? Not a governor or a president, but an individual. Different people may have different tolerances for risk. For some people that trip to a restaurant or a place of worship may be a risk worth taking. For others it is not. For sure, each individual decision can affect other people—one person who takes too much risk and gets sick means one fewer hospital slot available for someone else. But that is true in many areas of American life, and it hasn't until now caused the country or states to be locked down.
Those people, unfortunately, are still able to spread to those who do have a much hight mortality rate.
Thats pretty much the entirety of laws that involve safety. My right to drive 150 mph is curtailed for the benefit of people I might kill.
The point of having society, and of having governments, is that cooperation allows us all to lead longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives. You can't just discard the necessity of cooperation in specific instances where the benefit you personally receive is lower than the amount of effort you need to put in.
Yes it has, in the 1918 pandemic. This is a false equivalency anyway, and can be made an anti-vaccination argument, where parents decide upon the lives of their children
No shit, but 100% of restaurants would fail with zero capacity. A partial open is better than nothing.
> "and if things open back up and people don’t show, we’re going to have a very different economic problem on our hands."
What would that be?