Locked-down California runs out of reasons for surprising surge | Hacker News Reader

Locked-down California runs out of reasons for surprising surge

politico.com

28 pointsthrowawaysea22 comments

> California has had some of the toughest restrictions in the country to combat the coronavirus, from a complete ban on restaurant dining to travel quarantines and indoor gym closures

But what haven't they banned? There are over 3 million Californians in households making under $25.5k/year: https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/

There is a very large underclass in America, and most of them are working for Uber/DoorDash etc. The rest work at Walmart and other virus breeding grounds.

How safe is it for someone to work all day in a car, picking up random strangers (many of them travelers and tourists), and then go home to a cramped 2 bedroom apartment housing 5 other people?

The idea that "banning indoor dining is all we can do!" is absolutely ridiculous. They are closing down small businesses while allowing infections to occur for the benefit of big tech.

You hit the nail on the head. If you want to observe the unholy alliance between the extreme right wing billionaire class and tech, look no further than "social media" and "the sharing economy". Nomenclature so cynically doublethink you wonder how we ever fell for it. Well, I don't really. Tech is neutral!!! /s

A lot of people here are living inside the big tech bubble and don't understand that the collapse of unions and unlimited flow of scabs have been an unmitigated disaster for American workers.

But banning indoor dining is all they can do. Isn't the big thing about Uber is that its evaded regulations...

> California has had some of the toughest restrictions in the country to combat the coronavirus

And it's almost completely laughable how people are responding.

When the previous lockdown hit, everybody from about 5 houses around decided to have an impromptu block party the next day (about 20-25 people total).

If you're not going to enforce the lockdown on PEOPLE, then it's pointless.

> There are over 3 million Californians in households making under $25.5k/year

Sounds like that's a problem that's largely orthogonal to covid19, and results mainly by the US's attitude to income inequality and systemic poverty and consequently it's attitude towards ensuring citizens have a decent quality of life.

Is Zimbabwe's poverty because they have a bad "attitude towards income inequality"? How unequal was California when Ronald Regan was governor and before his 1986 amnesty?

What was his 1986 amnesty? Hadn’t he been President for one term at that point?

It's a reference to IRCA (Simpson-Mazzoli), which had passed Congress with substantial majorities (> 2/3 in the Senate). It wasn't a Reagan Executive Order.

He supported it and signed it into law. It's very unlikely Congress would have passed it if Regan had opposed it.

Politics aside, laws and mandates only work if people actually abide by them. As soon as a populous stops caring what their "leaders" say or what police will do neither police or politicians really have any power. It also doesn't help when your mayor / governor are hilariously hypocritical.

Is it possible that with strict lockdowns people just stop abiding by the rules? This reminds me of a the historical statistic that while tax rates have varied wildly, government revenue as a percentage of GDP remained relatively static. The theory is that beyond a certain rate the cost (cost in terms of hiring a good accountant, and cost in terms of risk of prosecution) of tax evasion is lower and that's what most people did.

When outdoor dining was closed I would take dates out to a public park and order DoorDash to the park and eat on the picnic tables.

> Is it possible that with strict lockdowns people just stop abiding by the rules?

I feel this assertion does not make any sense. The whole reason for a lockdown is that there are irresponsible and reckless people who don't abide by the rules voluntarily, and consequently they are directly and actively spreading the disease.

Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly.

> Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly

The idea that enforcement actions categorically have no impact on attitudes toward the rules being enforced is...fairly radical, and could use at some evidence or reasoning supporting it rather than being stated as a bare conclusion.

You're somehow trying to shift the burden of proof. Please provide evidence that supports the assertion that those who don't voluntarily comply with basic safety precautions will stop complying with the rules if they are made mandatory. I mean, the premise itself is absurd, don't you agree?

Please check the sintax of your previous comments. I find it impossible to parse what you mean in these two sentences:

>Making these rules mandatory and enforcing them does not have an impact in the attitudes of said responsible and reckless people towards the need to act responsibly.

>Please provide evidence that supports the assertion that those who don't voluntarily comply with basic safety precautions will stop complying with the rules if they are made mandatory.

Are you arguing for or against the effectiveness of enforcement?

Are these all measesues for old people to live few more months? Or is it covid-19 shortening people life more in US than Sweden?

'The observed temporary excess mortality likely arises because people in vulnerable groups die weeks or months earlier than they would otherwise, due to the timing and severity of the unusual external event.' https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v...

It's to allow people to live, on average, 11-13 more years. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/49...

It's also to keep heath services from being overwhelmed, which will cause a big spike in deaths from all causes.

I'd like to see how that average was calculated. I couldn't find in the paper how it was calculated.

I assume it must be only counting people who died. Not sure how they count people who lived longer than expected?

I'd also like to how it compares to other illnesses.

11-13 more years is study for Italy from April 2020. It says also if people were not dying from other diseases. For comparison other diseases: "Using UK reports for approximate comparisons, the YLL for other conditions ranged, per capita from 8.2 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 11.6 for coronary heart disease, 13.1 for pneumonia, and 21.6 for asthma"

There's also the issue of "long covid" - people who before they caught it were perfectly healthy, but months later are still suffering from symptoms such as fatigue or breathlessness. I haven't seen any good data on how many people this affects, although it's estimated to be around 2% of those infected [0].

The important thing is these cases are often reported (by media) in young people, not just old people. What affect would it have on the economy if 2% of the working population suddenly couldn't work and needed life long welfare and medical support?

[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v...

How long till they realize that CALPERS is bankrupt?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com