New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
New York Governor announces 100% workforce reduction for non-essential services
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/20/new-york-governor-announces-100-workforce-reduction-for-non-essential-services/
380 comments
There is no doubt Cuomo should be the national point person for the response to the crisis based on his performance so far. He is independently working with regional manufacturing to retool to make critical medical PPE and ventilators, and has organized a regional coalition including CT, NJ, and PA. I have not agreed with him all the time, but his crisis management has been exemplary and he will have saved many lives in NY by the time this is done.
I think that Gov Newsom of CA has been doing a way better job than Cuomo:
- implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count
- doesn't fight with his mayors or the President
- no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later
- implements stricter measures faster and more decisively, while having a lower case count
- doesn't fight with his mayors or the President
- no false promises or statements that need to be taken back days later
He's done great, too, and if either of them were in charge of coordinating the response it would be preferable.
California's population density cannot compare to Downstate New York, so there are some advantages to implement social distancing measures in CA than in NY/NYC.
NYC has the highest population density in the US, and yet Cuomo is fighting against stronger measures in NYC proposed by Mayor De Blasio.
[deleted]
It's a difficult decision to be made. On one hand, short term strong measure will guarantee unemployment and bankruptcies and potentially long term economic impact (talk about another the Great Depression). On the other hand, inaction will inevitably cause millions of deaths including young people. It's a chilling effect to see that "the point of no return" date was already past last week for NY. Very very disturbing. I live in NYC metro and has never been so frightened and furious in my life of 40 years, knowing that in a few weeks/months myself, myself, my family or my friends and colleague could potentially die, all due to 2 months of Federal Government's inaction.
I can't remember the last time I logged in.
I live in in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and I don't want belittle the gravity of the situation at all because we have seen seen 3 obituary entries (all elderly) and have a number of other people who we are praying for in precarious situations.
But your comment strikes me as something out dystopian sci-fi. Our volunteer ems reps as of 4 days ago estimated that 80% of the community had been infected and anecdotally it seems now higher than than that. I do not know anyone who has not had flu like symptoms in the past week. Obviously, that means that I along with my entire immediate family have been slowly recovering from sometimes flue like this past week and G-d willing will feel good again in the next day or days.
And I know that other communities in Brooklyn and upstate NY have similar infection saturation. Thus the official infection numbers are off by factors of 10 which means the death and hospitalization rates are significantly overstated. The danger is in the absolute numbers.
I don't know what to make of all this other than that some large communities have peaked and aren't seeing death in streets as it were.
There's every reason to hope and good reasons to believe that the distancing measures now in effect will give NY the time to ramp up the health care system to accommodate those most badly affected.
I hope someone found something useful in this comment.
I live in in Crown Heights, Brooklyn and I don't want belittle the gravity of the situation at all because we have seen seen 3 obituary entries (all elderly) and have a number of other people who we are praying for in precarious situations.
But your comment strikes me as something out dystopian sci-fi. Our volunteer ems reps as of 4 days ago estimated that 80% of the community had been infected and anecdotally it seems now higher than than that. I do not know anyone who has not had flu like symptoms in the past week. Obviously, that means that I along with my entire immediate family have been slowly recovering from sometimes flue like this past week and G-d willing will feel good again in the next day or days.
And I know that other communities in Brooklyn and upstate NY have similar infection saturation. Thus the official infection numbers are off by factors of 10 which means the death and hospitalization rates are significantly overstated. The danger is in the absolute numbers.
I don't know what to make of all this other than that some large communities have peaked and aren't seeing death in streets as it were.
There's every reason to hope and good reasons to believe that the distancing measures now in effect will give NY the time to ramp up the health care system to accommodate those most badly affected.
I hope someone found something useful in this comment.
To add some clarification here, I think he is referring to infection rates in the Hassidic community (Crown Heights has a large Hasidic population) in Brooklyn and in upstate New York Hasdic enclaves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/Coronavirus-broo...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/nyregion/coronavirus-hasi...
Reddit comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fkhgv0/defying_rules_l...
I find this somewhat encouraging.
If the Hasidem aren't dropping dead...well, draw your own conclusions. Yes, I am well aware that they might start dropping dead in the next few weeks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/Coronavirus-broo...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/nyregion/coronavirus-hasi...
Reddit comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/fkhgv0/defying_rules_l...
I find this somewhat encouraging.
If the Hasidem aren't dropping dead...well, draw your own conclusions. Yes, I am well aware that they might start dropping dead in the next few weeks.
[deleted]
Given how uncertain these times are, I’m not surprised that anyone who has had a mild cold and up since Jan is now pretty sure it was actually coronavirus. But if it was secretly that widespread, why are 90% people tested coming back negative? In short: listen to the public health experts, not the volunteer EMS.
90% of people being tested coming back negative either completely upends or misses my narrative depending on the details on the population being tested. there's just not enough there in your hand waiving to address.
dismiss if you will but I was here where within a week everyone went from completely healthy to having the flu.
i don't believe I'm the first to suggest that test based results are completely bogus.
dismiss if you will but I was here where within a week everyone went from completely healthy to having the flu.
i don't believe I'm the first to suggest that test based results are completely bogus.
The public health experts in Trump administration (CDC Director Robert R. Redfield, DHH Secretary Alex Azar has been a bunch of clowns) had not been forthcoming from late Jan up until National Emergency declared last week, either due to gag order or ignoring the fact that travel ban would not save America from this viral outbreak. Even NIH Infectious Disease Dr. Anthony Fauci has had an gag order at one point when Pence was in charge of the Coronavirus Task Force a few weeks back. Yes now it's getting better. But We lost a few weeks of time. In a pandemic, every second earlier save lives!
On the other hand, I follow Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, Harvard/Johns Hopkins trained Epidemiologist on Twitter[1]. He was the first to blow the whistle in America and say COVID-19 is a "thermal-nuclear" level bad on a later deleted tweet[2], when Wuhan was in hell because the healthcare systems there were crashing in late Jan/early Feb. And now we know, COVID-19 is likely going to cause more death and worse economic tolls than the past nuclear war in WWII.
[1]: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing
[2]: https://disrn.com/news/harvard-epidemiologist-says-coronavir...
On the other hand, I follow Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding, Harvard/Johns Hopkins trained Epidemiologist on Twitter[1]. He was the first to blow the whistle in America and say COVID-19 is a "thermal-nuclear" level bad on a later deleted tweet[2], when Wuhan was in hell because the healthcare systems there were crashing in late Jan/early Feb. And now we know, COVID-19 is likely going to cause more death and worse economic tolls than the past nuclear war in WWII.
[1]: https://twitter.com/DrEricDing
[2]: https://disrn.com/news/harvard-epidemiologist-says-coronavir...
I think you are missing one important factor in why so many people are trying to block it. The more people who get it, the more some percentage will develop an infection serious enough to cause them to seek hospital care and some large fraction will need respiration. Most people will not get that sick. So it might feel like why are we panicing over this since we just get sick for a week and then we are over it.
It's because of what happened in Italy, too many people for the hospitals all at once. People over 45 don't get treated, they let them die, as the doctors say in their terrible reports. Washington state is facing the edge of this right now. They delayed all elective surgeries at the hospitals. The hospitals in the Seattle area are started to be at the breaking point. They started building temp hospitals in Soccer fields. Yesterday it was one, now it's many. It was in the that one famous senior citizen's home (25% dead, 50% in hospital, 25% waiting). Now it's in 10 of them here.
This is real and serious.
It's because of what happened in Italy, too many people for the hospitals all at once. People over 45 don't get treated, they let them die, as the doctors say in their terrible reports. Washington state is facing the edge of this right now. They delayed all elective surgeries at the hospitals. The hospitals in the Seattle area are started to be at the breaking point. They started building temp hospitals in Soccer fields. Yesterday it was one, now it's many. It was in the that one famous senior citizen's home (25% dead, 50% in hospital, 25% waiting). Now it's in 10 of them here.
This is real and serious.
[deleted]
Inslee is Washington also seems to be doing a good job in similar ways to those too.
Newsom referred to California as a "Nation State" repeatedly in his latest address, which is a great way to tell the Federal Government to pound sand. He took Trump's call for each state to fend for itself seriously. I wouldn't say that he's not fighting with the president.
He's been doing a great job though
He's been doing a great job though
> He took Trump's call for each state to fend for itself seriously.
Is that really fighting with the President?
Republicans have a fundamentally different philosophy about disaster management that matches their general philosophy about government.
Democrats generally prefer a centralized response, while Republicans want local control. I haven't heard any Republican object to Calfornia acting independently. That's actually doing what Republicans prefer.
Is that really fighting with the President?
Republicans have a fundamentally different philosophy about disaster management that matches their general philosophy about government.
Democrats generally prefer a centralized response, while Republicans want local control. I haven't heard any Republican object to Calfornia acting independently. That's actually doing what Republicans prefer.
But what's the intelligent local way to deal with a pandemic? All I see is ignoring the problem, insisting it's some kind of liberal conspiracy.
I suppose maybe he hasn't gone as far as "fighting with" the President over coronavirus. They've had "fights" in the past on other issues but you're right in that Newsom was very California-focussed recently.
I think Newsom has realized that the federal government was caught with its pants down and will be useless for the rest of this crisis. He needed to step up and he did. Calling California a "Nation State" was a deliberate way of saying "we're on our own and we should be ready for that". It's a dig at the President but maybe not fighting words. It struck me as surprisingly anti-federalist, states-rights positive thing for a Democrat governor to be saying though. If the leader of a southern state was using those words, I'd be relatively upset (we fought a war over this in the 1800s).
The fighting will no doubt resume when this is all over.
I think Newsom has realized that the federal government was caught with its pants down and will be useless for the rest of this crisis. He needed to step up and he did. Calling California a "Nation State" was a deliberate way of saying "we're on our own and we should be ready for that". It's a dig at the President but maybe not fighting words. It struck me as surprisingly anti-federalist, states-rights positive thing for a Democrat governor to be saying though. If the leader of a southern state was using those words, I'd be relatively upset (we fought a war over this in the 1800s).
The fighting will no doubt resume when this is all over.
Wouldn't it be wild if this triggered secession?
It might. Historically pandemics have remade the global map and socio-economic system. The combination of WW1 + Spanish Flu led to the collapse of the Russian, Austrian, Ottoman, and Chinese empires along with the formation of the UK and a resurgent American, German, and Italian nationalism. Black Death led to the collapse of the feudal system and the rise of bourgeoise capitalism. The Plague of Justinian laid to rest any hopes that the Byzantine empire would recapture the Western Roman Empire and lead to a reunified Rome.
I could see this being the start of a ~10 year period of social unrest, plague, and natural calamities that eventually destroys the nation-state in favor of a loose conglomeration of city-states.
I could see this being the start of a ~10 year period of social unrest, plague, and natural calamities that eventually destroys the nation-state in favor of a loose conglomeration of city-states.
I see the appeal of a "confederacy" in the abstract sense of loosely-associated states that fall under a common banner in times of war or intense need.
This should've been done much sooner, certainly before St. Patrick's Day. He rejected an earlier proposal by De Blasio. It was obvious that this was coming and also clear that NYC would've been hit very hard. No state government has done well.
Couldn't De Blasio have done the same for NYC? (an actual question, I assumed he would have the power). Because pushing the hard decision up the chain seems like a win win for De Blasio, can't be blamed either way.
Sorry what? His state has the highest infection rate and he just NOW did a 100% workforce reduction. He hasn't even issued "a shelter in place" order. BARS WERE OPEN MONDAY. Thousands of deaths will be on his hands. I think he should be criminally prosecuted.
NY needs to be locked down NOW.
NY needs to be locked down NOW.
For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield.
On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses. In circumstances like this, it is not suspect in the least.
I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime. Now, this happens sometimes in NY government (quite often, really) but it usually involves corruption; I am not aware of any particular law he has violated in acquitting his duties in this matter. Anger may indeed be quite justified, but when politicians are prosecuted for their policies after the fact, this is usually more effective at turning a place into a banana republic than it is at improving the quality of the policies.
On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses. In circumstances like this, it is not suspect in the least.
I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime. Now, this happens sometimes in NY government (quite often, really) but it usually involves corruption; I am not aware of any particular law he has violated in acquitting his duties in this matter. Anger may indeed be quite justified, but when politicians are prosecuted for their policies after the fact, this is usually more effective at turning a place into a banana republic than it is at improving the quality of the policies.
> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state
Not particularly, curfew and similar restrictions are common emergency measures, and their is no Constitutional difference for greater scale except that it reduces the possibility of it being covert discrimination. And, even if it was, Cuomo had one of the most pressing needs to do it of any state, and was slower than some others. Now, I'm not arguing he was negligent, but he's not a head-and-shoulders above everyone else standout the way he's been portrayed upthread, either.
> On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses
Cuomo was slow at that, too.
> I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime
Untrue. People are criminally prosecuted (and even convicted) without committing crimes all the time. He'd have to be accused of a crime, though.
Not particularly, curfew and similar restrictions are common emergency measures, and their is no Constitutional difference for greater scale except that it reduces the possibility of it being covert discrimination. And, even if it was, Cuomo had one of the most pressing needs to do it of any state, and was slower than some others. Now, I'm not arguing he was negligent, but he's not a head-and-shoulders above everyone else standout the way he's been portrayed upthread, either.
> On the other hand, the state can totally shut down businesses
Cuomo was slow at that, too.
> I will further note that for Cuomo to be criminally prosecuted, he would need to commit some crime
Untrue. People are criminally prosecuted (and even convicted) without committing crimes all the time. He'd have to be accused of a crime, though.
Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines". Almost no right in the constitution is unlimited.
Speech and movement can be restricted with good cause, and this virus certainly counts. States right now very much have the legal power to say "no gatherings of any sort, no leaving your house without good cause, etc".
Speech and movement can be restricted with good cause, and this virus certainly counts. States right now very much have the legal power to say "no gatherings of any sort, no leaving your house without good cause, etc".
> Under a declared emergency, the constitution turns more into "guidelines".
That's certainly the way it's treated nowadays. That doesn't make such treatment right.
That's certainly the way it's treated nowadays. That doesn't make such treatment right.
Turns out, we do have a law against what he is doing:
Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.
[deleted]
> For good and for ill, it is Constitutionally problematic to "lock down" an entire state, as it is essentially placing millions of people under arrest, which in the general case is a stupefyingly terrible power for any government to wield.
I don't understand why this meme keeps getting repeated, when the power to quarantine has been rather conclusively litigated in the courts.
I don't understand why this meme keeps getting repeated, when the power to quarantine has been rather conclusively litigated in the courts.
The power to quarantine individuals and groups of infected people has been well-litigated. But it is a very new thing indeed to tell 7 or 8 million people at a time, around 99% of whom are still expected to be uninfected, that they are now threats, and are under some form of house arrest. This is unprecedented and has never been litigated.
New York's quarantine law, in particular, allows you to challenge the quarantine order in court after 3 days. It is then on the state to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that you — specifically you — pose a clear threat to the safety of others, and that your confinement is the least restrictive means to contain this threat.
New York's quarantine law, in particular, allows you to challenge the quarantine order in court after 3 days. It is then on the state to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that you — specifically you — pose a clear threat to the safety of others, and that your confinement is the least restrictive means to contain this threat.
> The power to quarantine individuals and groups of infected people has been well-litigated.
So has the power to issue emergency curfews when justified by a compelling state interest, which is what a shelter-in-place order is.
So has the power to issue emergency curfews when justified by a compelling state interest, which is what a shelter-in-place order is.
The expectation is not that 99% are uninfected.
Do you expect that when the Shelter In Place orders were issued around the Bay Area earlier that there were 70,000 active cases in the Bay Area? That would be a far higher estimate than I've heard and I would love sources which project it in detail.
I think there's a social engineering aspect of this where it's believed by governments that drastic measures wouldn't be accepted by the public overnight. They think something like a shelter could only go smoothly after a period of ramping up to it with a period of persistent messaging and getting people used to less drastic measures first. Think of how many (more) people would be ignoring this and writing it off as a hoax if they were told out of nowhere that they had to stay home.
We're getting a picture (Burr) that the federal government knew these measures were coming a while back. My guess is that if governors and mayors of large cities had been read in back then they'd have started prepping local measures earlier.
We're getting a picture (Burr) that the federal government knew these measures were coming a while back. My guess is that if governors and mayors of large cities had been read in back then they'd have started prepping local measures earlier.
I agree that western governments seem to believe this, but I don't believe it's true. All you have to do is start enforcing the order, and people will start to get the message.
I don't know if it's true or not, but believing it and ramping up to drastic measures isn't negligence and certainly doesn't warrant criminal prosecution, as the commenter suggested.
I think an abrupt enforced order for people to stay home would be a disaster. Aside from all the people who distrust authority for the sake of distrusting authority, and all the resistance and denial it would breed, what happens when law enforcement starts getting sick and infecting all the people they have to forcibly keep home or detain?
I think an abrupt enforced order for people to stay home would be a disaster. Aside from all the people who distrust authority for the sake of distrusting authority, and all the resistance and denial it would breed, what happens when law enforcement starts getting sick and infecting all the people they have to forcibly keep home or detain?
> His state has the highest infection rate
NY doesn't have the highest infection rate, just the highest raw count.
This likely just reflects the fact that NY is doing a lot more testing than any other state.
Alabama has had roughly 80% of their tests come back positive, and they've only done a little more than a hundred.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testi...
NY doesn't have the highest infection rate, just the highest raw count.
This likely just reflects the fact that NY is doing a lot more testing than any other state.
Alabama has had roughly 80% of their tests come back positive, and they've only done a little more than a hundred.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testi...
I think Cuomo understands that it's not actually possible to lock down NYC. There aren't enough cops, courtrooms, or jail cells to enforce anything. That is why he's focusing on fining businesses for staying open, and is not sending cops up to make sure everyone stays 6 feet apart. One thing is possible, the other is just an authoritarian pipe dream.
"Shelter in place" is a meaningless term when you can leave the shelter to go for a walk, go out and buy groceries, go to work as one of the many essential services, etc. Cuomo said as much. This isn't a natural disaster that destroyed infrastructure; all that needs to be done is keep the rate of hospitalizations under the number of available hospital beds.
"Shelter in place" is a meaningless term when you can leave the shelter to go for a walk, go out and buy groceries, go to work as one of the many essential services, etc. Cuomo said as much. This isn't a natural disaster that destroyed infrastructure; all that needs to be done is keep the rate of hospitalizations under the number of available hospital beds.
NY and NYC have a different relationship and needs and a lot falls on the mayor. This played out in Seattle and San Fransisco, too.
It helps to be advised by one of the best people in healthcare too, Dr. Howard Zucker.
A big leadership quality is the ability to identify expertise and listen to it.
Cuomo said 24hours ago he would not implement a total shutdown. He changed his mind hours later following California's lead.
Being a fast follower is good, but not exemplary
Being a fast follower is good, but not exemplary
And he’s still not implementing a total shutdown. He’s implementing 100% work from home unless for essential businesses. He’s also been on track to do this since earlier this week as he’s been slowly ratcheting up that number from 50% to the full 100% today.
This isn’t a competition between Governors as each of their municipalities are different and have unique circumstances.
This isn’t a competition between Governors as each of their municipalities are different and have unique circumstances.
Cuomo is two weeks too late due to plugging his ears and ignoring his public health advisors.
As far as I can tell he's been way too slow and this is still not a lock down, so I'm unsure why I see so much praise for him.
I suspect it's because he did a cutesy interview.
I suspect it's because he did a cutesy interview.
[deleted]
I think the strongest leadership we have seen from any of the governors has been Mike Dewine of ohio. He acted quickly and with out regards to politics or the economy. I was especially impressed by his postpoent of the primaries. If Ohio keeps the curve below the ICU capacity it's going to be thanks to him and Amy Acton.
Yeah, he seems to be on top of things, other than being dismissive at first, then drastic change course when meeting with criticism
There are people who will be in their deathbed due to COVID-19 and still be dismissive to it.
Changing opinions when facts change is not a given for everyone :/
Changing opinions when facts change is not a given for everyone :/
You're talking about low-info by-standers and comparing them to someone who should be governing an important state in the richest nation in the world.
There is no comparison here. He is doing a subpar job given his responsibilities.
There is no comparison here. He is doing a subpar job given his responsibilities.
[deleted]
I don't mind that someone was dismissive weeks ago. I know I was. Now, I have been inside for 5 days. I saw that it was turning serious.
It didn't hit me emotionally until the pasta and toilet paper was out of stock in the stores but I would easily have taken precautions way earlier if I had any power when it hit me "rationally" in late January. The response is just way too late. Exercises should have been done. The army hospital tent should already be in place, food delivery to homes should already be in place etc.
It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures. As viral spread continues due to half hearted social distancing, when will we be able to return to normalcy? Given the characteristics of this virus even a few cases floating around seem to be enough to reignite contagion.
So we persist in stasis for a month or a year with no end in sight while the economy begins to collapse, which will also destroy lives and lead to humanitarian disaster?
And all of that on shoddy evidence which probably is not counting the true case fatality rate due to woeful ignorance of the total number of infected people?
This article from a Stanford Professor makes the case that COVID-19 mortality is not as high as initial reports make it seem:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
We also have potential treatments emerging that could alleviate much of the strain on the healthcare system.
We need to make rational and strategic decisions here, not decisions based out of fear.
Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity.
All of this is so that we can reopen society in a reasonable amount of time prepared to deal with the inevitable spread of this virus.
So we persist in stasis for a month or a year with no end in sight while the economy begins to collapse, which will also destroy lives and lead to humanitarian disaster?
And all of that on shoddy evidence which probably is not counting the true case fatality rate due to woeful ignorance of the total number of infected people?
This article from a Stanford Professor makes the case that COVID-19 mortality is not as high as initial reports make it seem:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
We also have potential treatments emerging that could alleviate much of the strain on the healthcare system.
We need to make rational and strategic decisions here, not decisions based out of fear.
Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity.
All of this is so that we can reopen society in a reasonable amount of time prepared to deal with the inevitable spread of this virus.
> It will be impossible for us to permanently stop the spread with half measures.
You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus.
New York's restrictions are primarily to make people contract it more slowly, so that the state (and other states) can deal with it more slowly.
You're not going to like this, but at this point, no one expects anyone to permanently stop the spread of the virus. It is very contagious, it has a very effective stealth mode, and it is widespread. You should probably expect that over half of the world population will contract this virus.
New York's restrictions are primarily to make people contract it more slowly, so that the state (and other states) can deal with it more slowly.
Why would we only expect half the world to get it? My understanding is that everyone needs to be eventually exposed in one way or another, either contracting the virus or getting a vaccine (when they are ready).
Herd Immunity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) means that everyone doesn't need to get it. The threshold for COVID-19 is estimated to be between 29-75%.
On a different note in scientific paper what is considered too large an error margin to consider it a value to talk about.
If the above is true that makes it what 52%+- 23
Assume that everyone who has it spreads it to 2 people on average before dying or recovering. If one of the 2 people you would have spread it to is immune, you will only spread it to 1 person instead, and the total number of infected will not rise.
Huh? If you spread it to 1 person, then the total number of people who have been infected will rise by 1.
I mean the total number of people sick at any given time, not the total number of people who have ever been infected.
[deleted]
The parent poster asked "Why would we only expect half the world to get it?". It sounds like your answer to that is "no no, almost everybody will get it, they'll just get it at different times".
If the effective transmission rate is 1, yes, more people will get it, and then the effective rate will go below 1, and you enter exponential decay.
China claims to have stopped it in its tracks.
This is a 100% serious question: I see that your statement is simply stated (and it's a fair representation of what China is saying as of /right now/), but I get the feeling you either agree with it and are applauding China, or are pointing out how ludicrous / absurd such a position is.
For the tone-impaired amongst us, if you are taking one of the positions, can you please help this simpleton understand what you think of China's proclamation?
I ask because I really don't know what most people think these days about the news coming out of China.
Sincere thanks.
For the tone-impaired amongst us, if you are taking one of the positions, can you please help this simpleton understand what you think of China's proclamation?
I ask because I really don't know what most people think these days about the news coming out of China.
Sincere thanks.
Personally, I take anything announced by the ccp with a grain of salt. They can maneuver the news any which way they want without being challenged internally.
China effectively let everyone catch the disease so that now everyone is either immune or dead.
This is wildly untrue and unfounded.
You think they handled a billion infections? Did you really think this through? The current numbers in China are ~80,000 not 1,000,000,000. Common sense should explain to you why that's not possible.
China locked down the entire country and implemented draconian never that we have (and will not). Check out what is required to travel right now in China:
https://twitter.com/CarolYujiaYin/status/1239583581325778944
Here in the USA we are only two days removed from having run Democratic primaries where millions of people lined up and crowded together in small rooms - the total opposite of what China (and South Korea and Japan) have done. Images of packed beaches and boardwalks continue to emerge. The unfortunate fact is that many Americans aren't taking this pandemic seriously which is going to result in a much worse time of it than it could have otherwise been.
https://twitter.com/CarolYujiaYin/status/1239583581325778944
Here in the USA we are only two days removed from having run Democratic primaries where millions of people lined up and crowded together in small rooms - the total opposite of what China (and South Korea and Japan) have done. Images of packed beaches and boardwalks continue to emerge. The unfortunate fact is that many Americans aren't taking this pandemic seriously which is going to result in a much worse time of it than it could have otherwise been.
Which means the only winning strategy is resume our lives - not hide in our homes. Those who are in the vulnerable categories should absolutely shelter-in-place, but the rest of us need to earn a living.
The government cannot possibly bail out every single business in the nation.
TLDR: Everyone under 50- go to work, wash your hands, maybe get sick. Everyone over 50 - stay at home until there's a vaccine.
The government cannot possibly bail out every single business in the nation.
TLDR: Everyone under 50- go to work, wash your hands, maybe get sick. Everyone over 50 - stay at home until there's a vaccine.
Except it doesn't work that way, because a certain % of people who get sick require hospitalization to survive - including people under 50 - even if that's a lower % than those who are older and/or have underlying medical conditions. We have under a million total hospital beds in the USA. If 100 million under 50s get sick right away and just 3% of them require hospitalization that's still 3x as many hospital beds as we have in the entire country (and that doesn't factor in all the people who require hospital beds for non-coronavirus reasons).
How many hundreds of thousands or millions of preventable deaths are acceptable to you for a faster bounceback of the economy?
How many hundreds of thousands or millions of preventable deaths are acceptable to you for a faster bounceback of the economy?
> How many hundreds of thousands or millions of preventable deaths are acceptable to you for a faster bounceback of the economy?
This is a really good question, because a dead economy is deadly too, and a shutdown is particularly hard on the people who can afford it least.
Normal Quality-Adjusted-Year-of-Life estimates are $50,000-$150,000. If this is a good estimate then ideally our economic shutdown won't pay much more than that overall; if we pay much more as a society, we have probably gone too far.
(And of course it feels bad to put a dollar value on a human life, so not everyone will want to do that. This doesn't change that we have to make this decision, though, it just means that we make our decision blindly and harm people more than we ought.)
This is a really good question, because a dead economy is deadly too, and a shutdown is particularly hard on the people who can afford it least.
Normal Quality-Adjusted-Year-of-Life estimates are $50,000-$150,000. If this is a good estimate then ideally our economic shutdown won't pay much more than that overall; if we pay much more as a society, we have probably gone too far.
(And of course it feels bad to put a dollar value on a human life, so not everyone will want to do that. This doesn't change that we have to make this decision, though, it just means that we make our decision blindly and harm people more than we ought.)
> Massive and systematic society wide testing is the first step, the second step is the bulk manufacture of demonstrated COVID-19 treatments. The third is ramping up hospital capacity.
By the time we would get tests and hospital beds, we'd already be too deep into the crisis for them to matter much. Millions will be dead.
Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, said last night that we are shutting down the city to buy time to get more beds, tests, and treatments. Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.
By the time we would get tests and hospital beds, we'd already be too deep into the crisis for them to matter much. Millions will be dead.
Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, said last night that we are shutting down the city to buy time to get more beds, tests, and treatments. Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.
> Our leaders have a good idea of what's necessary.
Some leaders who are listening to doctors and scientists see what is necessary.
California should have probably gone into lockdown earlier, but I think this was probably as fast as they could have reasonably moved.
Some leaders who are listening to doctors and scientists see what is necessary.
California should have probably gone into lockdown earlier, but I think this was probably as fast as they could have reasonably moved.
Problem with this line of thinking is it doesn't match up with the body count in the small areas in Italy that have had high infection rates. It probably turns out to be the only choice: there is no plan B where we just let bodies pile up.
Hopefully once antibody testing is rolled out (two weeks?) your theory about high undetected infection rate will be proven true.
Hopefully once antibody testing is rolled out (two weeks?) your theory about high undetected infection rate will be proven true.
South Korea stopped the infection without "full measures."
They were setting testing check points in major highways. It wasn't a full lockdown, because they tested everyone and had enough information to be able to contain it effectively.
"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it"
"If you can't measure it, you can't improve it"
They acted earlier.
And more competently. They actually managed to make enough tests in time and use them on all known contacts of any infected individual. We're long past the point of that being remotely possible in the US.
They also use tools that Americans will never accept (especially not the HN crowd) since it violates privacy.
The main stupid thing we did was very little testing. Our genius prez kept saying it was no big deal, and they followed policies that in retrospect make it look like they were trying to test less. At least the effective situation in the end was the entire us country has 100 times less testing that the tiny country of S.K.
If we had testing and actively tested 2 months ago we'd have see the problems and started dealing with them more aggressively. We stupidly seemed to follow a policy of no visible harm, no preperations necessary.
If we had testing and actively tested 2 months ago we'd have see the problems and started dealing with them more aggressively. We stupidly seemed to follow a policy of no visible harm, no preperations necessary.
I honestly think that the need is great enough in this case, but there's no way the powers would ever be given back.
Mind you, once enough people die, many things will change.
Mind you, once enough people die, many things will change.
how does that work out since S Korea is linked with the outside world? Is it sustainable for as long a the virus in out in the world? I guess that they stopped this round...if tens or hundreds of millions in the world have it, game over.
To be clear, the governor unequivocally said this is not a shelter in place. It is merely language telling employers that they are to not have workers physically present.
The governor also said there will not be any civil penalties for individuals that do not stay at home.
The governor also said there will not be any civil penalties for individuals that do not stay at home.
I think this will open the door for NYC to fully "shelter in place" lockdown, however.
Yeah, they're boiling the frog. Each incremental step is normalized over a few days, and then there's a new, stricter mandate.
Or like Contagion "Nobody can know until everyone knows" -- especially with quarantines because if people think they have early info they will try to leave before it's established exacerbating the exact measures the quarantine is intended to invoke.
Ultimately, even if 60% of people are massively harmed or inconvenienced by the restrictions it is a life-and-death matter for healthcare workers. Viral load is a problem, and keeping down the infections will reduce patient interactions without adequate PPE and mistakes. It is indicative of a collective societal favor that we're asking nurses, PAs, and doctors to risk there lives for a preventable situation. The risk of a systemic failure to the healthcare system would be a catastrophe.
> Each incremental step is normalized over a few days
So far, the "temperature" has been increased every 1-2 days.
So far, the "temperature" has been increased every 1-2 days.
Except the virus is doubling over those days so completely ineffective.
Tests are a lagging indicator, the important factor is the R value. R1.5 is vastly better than R2 in the short term but pales beside R0.95. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_of_infe...
Both South Korea and China have successfully gotten below R1, but it’s unclear how long they can maintain that stance.
Both South Korea and China have successfully gotten below R1, but it’s unclear how long they can maintain that stance.
> Mass transit will remain operational and restaurants, food delivery and bank will remain in service.
This kind of article would really benefit from a quick bulleted list at the top, I had to skim to get this essential info
This kind of article would really benefit from a quick bulleted list at the top, I had to skim to get this essential info
nyc.gov has a helpful list.
https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026
I was worried, because I just dropped my clothes off at the laundromat.
https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026
I was worried, because I just dropped my clothes off at the laundromat.
You don't need clothes at home.
So that’s CA and NY both with shelter in place. Strange that WA hasn’t implemented it yet.
This seems to be a reaction to people not doing it on their own sufficiently enough, like what happened in Italy. Perhaps Washingtonians are taking the recommendations more seriously, so they don't require an official mandate. That decision can't be a light one, and I don't envy those that have to make it.
> Perhaps Washingtonians are taking the recommendations more seriously
I doubt that. I'm in a mid sized city in WA and I've seen a notable increase in traffic in the last week. People are leaving their homes more now. Most of the offices are empty so I'm not entirely sure where they're going, but they're going somewhere.
I doubt that. I'm in a mid sized city in WA and I've seen a notable increase in traffic in the last week. People are leaving their homes more now. Most of the offices are empty so I'm not entirely sure where they're going, but they're going somewhere.
Can confirm. I'm in central Washington, and while restaurants and bars are closed, people are _definitely_ not respecting social distancing guidelines. I've even had people tell me to move closer to other people when standing in line at grocery stores.
Seconding this. We're 30 miles north of Seattle and there are tons of people still out and about. Beautiful weather isn't helping.
Seattle area is much sparser than NYC or SF. I still go out for walks and stuff and don't really see very many people and I'm only 20 minutes north of downtown. Keeping a 20ft distance is very easy.
Maybe outdoors? Maybe fleeing cities, or going to be with family in other parts of the country since it's clear this is going to last for months?
There's nowhere to go, unless you got to a cabin for a year. Every state has double digits which is where WA was just a few weeks ago. I guess being with family might be nicer but also a larger cluster of people to infect in your household.
There is no law enforcement action being taken for the NY or CA order. They’re relying on “social-pressure” to keep people inside.
3 days later and the law enforcement action is beginning in NYC: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
I've seen videos of NYPD going in and telling people in restaurants to clear out (from days ago). I wouldn't be surprised to see NYPD telling people to clear out for this too.
Adding onto this, people are indeed being arrested and charged by the NYPD for disorderly conduct and failing to disperse: https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-state...
More broadly, if you live in NYC and know the NYPD, then of course they're going to respond in this manner when such orders come out. When they have authority, they use it.
More broadly, if you live in NYC and know the NYPD, then of course they're going to respond in this manner when such orders come out. When they have authority, they use it.
From my reading of it, the NY order is directed at businesses—essentially, "you must not require your employees to be on site."
It's not primarily intended to tell individuals "you must stay home," just to strongly encourage that and make it easier for us to do so.
It's not primarily intended to tell individuals "you must stay home," just to strongly encourage that and make it easier for us to do so.
It takes time to criminalize freedom. For some, it can't happen fast enough.
If someone wants to exercise their freedoms and accept responsibility for harm they cause to themselves, I don't have a problem with that. I do however have a problem with someone's exercise of their freedoms causing physical harm to me without my consent. In the same way that it's not acceptable to get lit and then drive a car because it creates a risk to other people, people should shut up and stay inside when told to do so in this context as they risk getting sick or being sick and spreading the disease to others, potentially killing them.
[deleted]
That's how it should work. Excellent example. Automobile deaths account for over 3000 deaths per day, far in excess of what covid19 has or will do.
Given that information, it seems that you would recommend people "shut up and stay inside" due to the "risk to other people". This is not rational.
Giving up everyone's freedom and accepting simple authoritarian solutions a few vocal people want is not a good approach. Punishing perfectly healthy people by threat of imprisonment as a result of the absence of planning by the nation's healthcare and government is not a reasonable response.
Given that information, it seems that you would recommend people "shut up and stay inside" due to the "risk to other people". This is not rational.
Giving up everyone's freedom and accepting simple authoritarian solutions a few vocal people want is not a good approach. Punishing perfectly healthy people by threat of imprisonment as a result of the absence of planning by the nation's healthcare and government is not a reasonable response.
That 3000+ per day is for the entire globe. And horrifyingly, there’s a chance the US alone will surpass that for some period in the coming weeks. Italy recorded 600+ today, and we’re much bigger. Plus we are way behind on locking down.
That sounds horrifying. What information leads you to believe that the United States will be having so many automobile deaths in the coming weeks?
Don’t be purposely obtuse. You know what I meant.
There are still many employers that refuse to allow work from home for employees that can.
Huh? NY is explicitly not a "shelter in place". It is a restriction only on employers, not individuals.
Other than kids, I haven't seen anyone really violating the social distancing protocol. People are out and about but not really going near one another except for people that look like they live together (couples, families, etc.)
IL will start theirs on Saturday.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-il...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-il...
WA has high testing capacity compared to rest of country and has a very low "new-cases" grade (almost flat). So until it gets worse, they're probably in an "okay" position.
Give it time
I'm glad that the favorite son could do the right thing for the state of NY, particularly when their positive cases are exploding.
"Better late than never" stays true, but when you're fighting against an invisible enemy (because of little testing) that invades exponentially quickly, "late" will unfortunately have a high human lives cost associated to it.
Alas he is the reason it didn't come sooner in NYC https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ny-gov-cuomo-says-no-ne...
Cuomo loves half-measures and taking credit for not doing much of anything.
There's no force of law behind this order.
Earlier this week he announced "mortgage relief," but its means-tested and difficult to actually navigate. It won't help.
A year or 2 ago he rolled out his "free college for every new yorker" plan. It benefits about 10% of the population.
Cuomo's only skill is talking a big game. He's exactly as bad as most other neolibs.
There's no force of law behind this order.
Earlier this week he announced "mortgage relief," but its means-tested and difficult to actually navigate. It won't help.
A year or 2 ago he rolled out his "free college for every new yorker" plan. It benefits about 10% of the population.
Cuomo's only skill is talking a big game. He's exactly as bad as most other neolibs.
10% of the population of NYS is 2 million people.
It may be falsely advertised if it was claimed as “free college for every New Yorker” but I’m hard pressed to understand why people who support things like tuition free college programs get so angry about steps in that direction.
Even if it’s only 10% of that 2 million people that actually need to go college it’s still 200,000 Americans that are better off than they were before.
And didn’t NY’s legislature not turn blue until November of 2019?
I may be wrong, but if helping hundreds of thousands of low income Americans get access to higher education means your only skill is “talking a big game” and makes you a “bad neolib” I’m not sure that’s a message I can get behind.
I don’t know all of Cuomo’s policies or history, he may indeed be a bad Governor, but I really have trouble understand the people who shit on others for moving us in a positive direction because it’s not 100% of the way there yet.
It may be falsely advertised if it was claimed as “free college for every New Yorker” but I’m hard pressed to understand why people who support things like tuition free college programs get so angry about steps in that direction.
Even if it’s only 10% of that 2 million people that actually need to go college it’s still 200,000 Americans that are better off than they were before.
And didn’t NY’s legislature not turn blue until November of 2019?
I may be wrong, but if helping hundreds of thousands of low income Americans get access to higher education means your only skill is “talking a big game” and makes you a “bad neolib” I’m not sure that’s a message I can get behind.
I don’t know all of Cuomo’s policies or history, he may indeed be a bad Governor, but I really have trouble understand the people who shit on others for moving us in a positive direction because it’s not 100% of the way there yet.
It seems highly likely that the US is headed where the whole of Europe is now: over 100,000 positives, over 5,000 deaths. We waited too long for actions like this. It will take a month before we see a drop in cases and deaths
If the US gets away with as few as 5,000 deaths that would be remarkably good, fewer than the opiate crisis (is that still going on?) or the particular long-standing cause of about 10k deaths annually that the CDC is banned from making suggestions about.
A month? Wouldn't it be more like 1-2 weeks?
The problem we are going to have in the US is some states are responding better than others. NY looks bad right now because they are testing a lot. States like Florida, Louisiana and Georgia are already in double digit deaths each and don't have the positive cases to account for them. Going forward the rate of deaths will be far more indicative of what's happening than just the positive cases and that is going to continue to climb for at least 4 more weeks. Will we see a ban on interstate travel? What happens when one state gets the outbreak under control while another state's cases are still increasing? I'm extremely doubtful that any one state in the US will see a significant slowdown in cases in the next 4 weeks. No European country has yet...
As you can see with WA, deaths is not a perfect metric either. Florida also has a lot of retirement homes and one getting hit will skew that metric a lot.
Yeah, I am very skeptical of extrapolation from deaths to get total cases. Just looking at China's numbers province by province reveals that the death rate varies quite a bit. Hubei has a very high mortality rate compared to the provinces surrounding it. Most provinces around Hubei had roughly 1 death per 1000 cases. But Henan, to the north had 22 deaths per thousand. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as a titular mortality rate for these viruses.
Italy and Spain each had a record number of deaths today at 627 and 212 respectively. The next two weeks are going to be terrible in the US.
We get shocked when an airplane with 150-300 people falls: we spend months talking about it. Now we see multiple instances of these numbers daily: two airplanes in Italy, one in Spain, a small one in the US, but it still doesn't feel as terrifying as a real airplane crash to me.
I'm not saying I'm denying COVID or that the deaths are not horrible, just that for some unknown reason airplane crashes still seem so much more horrible: I'm talking about feelings, not facts. I don't know.
OTOH, thinking about the economic implications of this crisis prevents me from sleeping.
I'm not saying I'm denying COVID or that the deaths are not horrible, just that for some unknown reason airplane crashes still seem so much more horrible: I'm talking about feelings, not facts. I don't know.
OTOH, thinking about the economic implications of this crisis prevents me from sleeping.
The one that bothers me is 9-11, how many trillions of dollars did the US spend after that on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the war against terror? We are likely to see several 9-11s worth of deaths in the US due to Covid-19, will we spend even a fraction of what we spent after 9-11 to be more prepared for the next pandemic?
Considering it’s been less than a month and there are already half trillion dollar plans to help Americans out being proposed, it seems like the answer is probably yes.
The virus progresses from infection to death in more like 3 weeks, depending on medical care. Any change in infections wouldn't be seen for about that time.
Right - but it isn't completely clear yet.
From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175438.h... :
A new study calculates that the median incubation period for COVID-19 is just over 5 days and that 97.5% of people who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days of infection.
From https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Inkubationszeit :
...the incubation period can be up to 14 days. In addition, there are reports from Chinese researchers that extend the possible incubation period up to 24 days. An analysis of the first 425 cases reported in Wuhan shows an incubation period of 5.2 days on average and an average age of 59 years. ... A statistical analysis of several reports of infections in a household or in another narrow spatial limitation (so-called clusters) shows an incubation period of 5–6 days on average.
Anyway, as long as people don't keep distance between each other, the situation won't improve. Here in Switzerland the limit was shurunk within ~2 weeks from groups of people of max 1000 to 500 to 100 to 10 to 5 (today's new guidelines) => so far nothing improved.
The company I'm working for reacted early => many employees started staying at home (and working remotely) already 3 weeks ago, like myself => at the beginning it was ok for me, but now it's getting psychologically a bit "heavy". Luckily the government so far did not implement a total curfew, so from time to time we can still walk a bit in the parks/forests (but alone).
From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175438.h... :
A new study calculates that the median incubation period for COVID-19 is just over 5 days and that 97.5% of people who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days of infection.
From https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Inkubationszeit :
...the incubation period can be up to 14 days. In addition, there are reports from Chinese researchers that extend the possible incubation period up to 24 days. An analysis of the first 425 cases reported in Wuhan shows an incubation period of 5.2 days on average and an average age of 59 years. ... A statistical analysis of several reports of infections in a household or in another narrow spatial limitation (so-called clusters) shows an incubation period of 5–6 days on average.
Anyway, as long as people don't keep distance between each other, the situation won't improve. Here in Switzerland the limit was shurunk within ~2 weeks from groups of people of max 1000 to 500 to 100 to 10 to 5 (today's new guidelines) => so far nothing improved.
The company I'm working for reacted early => many employees started staying at home (and working remotely) already 3 weeks ago, like myself => at the beginning it was ok for me, but now it's getting psychologically a bit "heavy". Luckily the government so far did not implement a total curfew, so from time to time we can still walk a bit in the parks/forests (but alone).
The progression to death is something like: (very rough, from memory)
Day 0: Infection
Day 5: First Symptoms
Day 11: Hospital admission/shortness of breath/oxygen
Day 14: Ventilator
Day 21: Death
If there's no ventilator on day 14, the process is tragically accelerated.
Day 0: Infection
Day 5: First Symptoms
Day 11: Hospital admission/shortness of breath/oxygen
Day 14: Ventilator
Day 21: Death
If there's no ventilator on day 14, the process is tragically accelerated.
I wonder what percentage of people have been saved by ventilators vs. merely had their death delayed.
Curious as well.
I find that in the US, we have an understandable but sometimes costly attachment to 'treat at all costs'.
I lost a family member to cancer last year - and was pushed by providers to pursue treatment that would have bankrupted me and my family, while adding (maybe) a few months of (low quality) life to someone already in pain and confined to a hospital bed.
I was made to feel callous about balancing the collective 80+ years of my family's life going forward, against the 80 days or less of an elderly relative.
If we can't break out of that mindset, then the coming coronavirus storm is going to provide some very painful choices on us, as it already has in other countries such as Italy.
I find that in the US, we have an understandable but sometimes costly attachment to 'treat at all costs'.
I lost a family member to cancer last year - and was pushed by providers to pursue treatment that would have bankrupted me and my family, while adding (maybe) a few months of (low quality) life to someone already in pain and confined to a hospital bed.
I was made to feel callous about balancing the collective 80+ years of my family's life going forward, against the 80 days or less of an elderly relative.
If we can't break out of that mindset, then the coming coronavirus storm is going to provide some very painful choices on us, as it already has in other countries such as Italy.
I’m sorry to hear that but you are spot on. Some decisions require cold-blood and we can only hope we chose the lesser evil.
Here are some stats about Italy: https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1593946/embed (extracted from here: https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/coronavirus/ )
("Morti giornalieri = daily deaths | "Terapia intensiva" = total amount of people in intensive care on that day)
As people who need a ventilator are in intensive care (but I admit that that includes as well people that have other types of complications who might not need/be using a ventilator), an idea of that can maybe be extrapolated by comparing that number vs. the number of deaths (daily? total?)?
Thinking more about it, another complication with these numbers is that there are probably already now not enough ventilators, therefore the deaths might include people that died because of the lack of a ventilator... .
("Morti giornalieri = daily deaths | "Terapia intensiva" = total amount of people in intensive care on that day)
As people who need a ventilator are in intensive care (but I admit that that includes as well people that have other types of complications who might not need/be using a ventilator), an idea of that can maybe be extrapolated by comparing that number vs. the number of deaths (daily? total?)?
Thinking more about it, another complication with these numbers is that there are probably already now not enough ventilators, therefore the deaths might include people that died because of the lack of a ventilator... .
It appears 5-10% of people need ventilators, and "need a ventilator" basically means that you will die without one. So the difference between that 5-10% and the actual death rate of <1% should be your answer.
I guess it really comes down to whether or not someone actually needed it, which is a very difficult thing to determine.
Mortality rate of people who get put on a ventilator is in the ballpark of 40%.
This is accurate. Also, most folks that do go to the Hospital with Covid-19 are staying much longer than people who have pneumonia. That means hospital beds that can't be recycled as quickly to get to the next wave of individuals.
This was apparent from the Chinese data, and sadly discounted by most Western countries.
China took about 18 days to get from from the number of cases the US currently has, to the peak of infected cases. But they had a pretty different approach to controlling it than the US did.
The numbers you see on dashboards have A LOT of lag from the moment of infection. There's incubation. There's "nah, this is just a regular cold". There's calling the doctor. There's looking for a test kit. There's processing the test. There's reporting. Then the numbers show up on the dash.
Plus, there will be a lag between the moment the order is issued and the moment you see material changes in patterns of social interaction.
It's definitely not 1 week, and even 2 seems a little sunny side up.
Plus, there will be a lag between the moment the order is issued and the moment you see material changes in patterns of social interaction.
It's definitely not 1 week, and even 2 seems a little sunny side up.
We'll see an acceleration of cases, due to accelerated testing. Additionally, there's a 2-3 week period between infection and death for the worst cases, so barring spectacular new treatments, even a reduction in cases will take a few weeks to impact the death rate.
There is also family to take into account. If you shut everything down today, you will see cases like this
1. X incubates for a week
2. X gets symptoms and infects spouse
3. X's spouse incubates for a week
4. X's spouse worsens for a few weeks
5. X's spouse dies
1. X incubates for a week
2. X gets symptoms and infects spouse
3. X's spouse incubates for a week
4. X's spouse worsens for a few weeks
5. X's spouse dies
[deleted]
Well seeing as how fatalities from workplace related injuries average about 5,000-6,000 a year, maybe we'll end up ahead.
In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything like the same discussion about priorities with this specific situation.
I'm not saying the answer would necessarily come out any different, but it's strange we're not really asking the questions.
In all seriousness the math around the trade-offs inherent in all these discussions seems oddly absent. About three million people die every year in the U.S., many of those deaths preventable with far less drastic measures than we are taking here, and it doesn't seem like we're having anything like the same discussion about priorities with this specific situation.
I'm not saying the answer would necessarily come out any different, but it's strange we're not really asking the questions.
It may be because our current health care infrastructure handles the expected rates of injuries and death through these internalized manners, and we’ve decided we’d rather not watch it collapse while sacrificing five percent of our elderly?
Plus whatever amount of people would die from not having access to healthcare?
And the innumerable numbers with long term reduced lung function.
And the fact the rest of the world would shut us off from everything regardless since we’d be this gigantic disaster zone.
I think, and don’t quote me on this, that the UKs original plan was “fuck it, lets aim for herd immunity”. I don’t think it took long for them to realize how terrible of an idea that was.
And lets not forget the incredible numbers of younger Americans with underlying health issues who’d die off in droves.
So I guess, is it _really_ that strange we’re not asking “what if just said fuck it”?
Edit: sorry if that came off rude, I suspect if you did ask that question, something akin to the above is the answer you’d get :-)
Plus whatever amount of people would die from not having access to healthcare?
And the innumerable numbers with long term reduced lung function.
And the fact the rest of the world would shut us off from everything regardless since we’d be this gigantic disaster zone.
I think, and don’t quote me on this, that the UKs original plan was “fuck it, lets aim for herd immunity”. I don’t think it took long for them to realize how terrible of an idea that was.
And lets not forget the incredible numbers of younger Americans with underlying health issues who’d die off in droves.
So I guess, is it _really_ that strange we’re not asking “what if just said fuck it”?
Edit: sorry if that came off rude, I suspect if you did ask that question, something akin to the above is the answer you’d get :-)
There was a report saying that reduced industrial output saved the lives of 10K plus chinese citizens through improved air quality, outweighing any COVID-related deaths.
Hilarious, in a sad and dark way.
Hilarious, in a sad and dark way.
If it's only 5000-6000, not sure where the approximate 120,000 in the CDC report come from (assuming the total includes the three numbers we can see on the first page and motor accident deaths are mostly not work related but I could be wrong on that).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm
I guess a lot of people die at home from accidents and poisonings. But the motor vehicle accident death rate should go down.
Because people react really badly to the cold-hearted measuring out of human lives, except when it's war.
I mean they themselves actually do it routinely. They just don’t always know or admit that they are doing it.
Yeah, but it doesn't enter the public consciousness, and people pretend not to understand.
It's one of the glorious fudges that we all collectively engage in.
It's one of the glorious fudges that we all collectively engage in.
This article has an overlay of known cases in US versus Italy. We're accelerating past Italy now.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/20/21179040/corona...
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/20/21179040/corona...
Why does the guidance linked from the article here: https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026 mention a 75% reduction and the actual order linked from there: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-2026-continuing-temporar... mention 50%?
Are they updating the order minute to minute?
Are they updating the order minute to minute?
> Are they updating the order minute to minute?
Yes. That was 2 days ago. It's a fluid, uncertain situation.
Yes. That was 2 days ago. It's a fluid, uncertain situation.
And is now 100%
[deleted]
[deleted]
Similar article that covers the issue https://www.courthousenews.com/teetering-on-lockdown-cuomo-n...
There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially
Then people won't take the rules seriously.
Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
Then people won't take the rules seriously.
Lots of people in this country still don't believe or understand how much damage this virus can inflict.
Man, I hate this take. I get where it's coming from. In times of significant stress, it's important that we all pull together and do work to benefit society as a whole. And part of the way we incentivize that is by calling out people who don't do their part. I get it.
But we are already inundated by outrage journalism, cancel culture, and public shaming. The last thing we need is more of that. We've already got enough things to be stressed, worried, anxious, and angry about.
The vast majority of people will respect the good advice coming from leadership, and those people are the ones who deserve our attention, in a positive way.
Look at this like engineering. With a large enough system, you are always going to have some components that fail. When your network has a million machines, you don't get upset when a server goes down, you just engineer some tolerance into your network, define processes to handle them, and go on with your life.
I have been constantly gratified by how many people are doing the right thing and those are the people that I want to focus my own attention on. I think we will all get through this with a little more sanity and emotional health if we can take a break from the perennial game of torches and pitchforks for a while.
But we are already inundated by outrage journalism, cancel culture, and public shaming. The last thing we need is more of that. We've already got enough things to be stressed, worried, anxious, and angry about.
The vast majority of people will respect the good advice coming from leadership, and those people are the ones who deserve our attention, in a positive way.
Look at this like engineering. With a large enough system, you are always going to have some components that fail. When your network has a million machines, you don't get upset when a server goes down, you just engineer some tolerance into your network, define processes to handle them, and go on with your life.
I have been constantly gratified by how many people are doing the right thing and those are the people that I want to focus my own attention on. I think we will all get through this with a little more sanity and emotional health if we can take a break from the perennial game of torches and pitchforks for a while.
In my (normally very busy) neighborhood in nyc, I'd say this week vehicle traffic is down like 70-80% and pedestrian traffic had been down 50-60% earlier in the week and yesterday and today is looking more like 80-90% reduced -- and actually today vehicle traffic seems like it is almost gone. Just delivery and sanitation vehicles.
People seem to be taking it seriously here, but I'm sure there are plenty of places where people are not.
People seem to be taking it seriously here, but I'm sure there are plenty of places where people are not.
Yeah, but people aren't machines. We will absolutely get upset when our loved ones die because a minority of fools decided their party was more important than our familys' continued survival. Analogy to some stupid servers is the worst way to analyze this situation.
Mandatory breakup of large groups is actually the lighter of the tools the government could use here. Intentionally endangering other people's lives is usually punished by jail, and even unintentional but reckless endangerment can be fine- or jail-worthy.
Wash your hands and stay away from each other, people.
Mandatory breakup of large groups is actually the lighter of the tools the government could use here. Intentionally endangering other people's lives is usually punished by jail, and even unintentional but reckless endangerment can be fine- or jail-worthy.
Wash your hands and stay away from each other, people.
The problem is jail is just about the worst place you could put someone potentially infected.
I am absolutely sick to death of outrage culture, and I thoroughly agree - in fact I think the outrage probably encourages the bravado of people who are engaging in risky behaviour atm
Crisis fatigue. The boy who cried wolf syndrome. I think it plays a part, I would love to know for sure. Such things are often impossible to know, but it's not impossible to realize that there are things that are unknown. Although, it seems like this is quite difficult for most people...uncertainty seems to make the human mind behave erratically.
Regardless, if true, we made our bed, now we get to sleep in it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Regardless, if true, we made our bed, now we get to sleep in it. As you sow, so shall you reap.
A great way to get rid of outrage culture, btw, would be to get rid of all the systems generating the outrage.
That assumes outrage is motivated primarily by flawed systems and not the psychological and social benefits that accrue to those who express the most outrage. It may also be true that outrage is not the best way to solve systemic problems.
I think in some cases though there are systems that funnel people into places that seem designed to evoke engagement and often the engagement triggers outrage.
I wish Jack Dorsey at Twitter would take a look at the absolute shit-show that is "Trends for You" in the Explore section. It's nothing but the most outraged people trying to whip everyone into a frenzy. I try to resist going in there, but every once in a while can't help but be sucked in and almost always regret it.
I wish Jack Dorsey at Twitter would take a look at the absolute shit-show that is "Trends for You" in the Explore section. It's nothing but the most outraged people trying to whip everyone into a frenzy. I try to resist going in there, but every once in a while can't help but be sucked in and almost always regret it.
> take a look at the absolute shit-show that is "Trends for You" in the Explore section.
I finally figured out a good solution for that. Click the gear and turn off personalized trends. Then set the country to a language you don't speak.
I don't know a lick of Latvian, but now Twitter is all about telling me what's going on over there.
I finally figured out a good solution for that. Click the gear and turn off personalized trends. Then set the country to a language you don't speak.
I don't know a lick of Latvian, but now Twitter is all about telling me what's going on over there.
I'm not sure you actually understand how legitimately scared we all are.
So "burn down the Internet, all the way back to the BBS days, and burn those down too."
Seems like overkill.
Seems like overkill.
[deleted]
This is a really naive take in my opinion. Edit: it's naive at best. Sounds more like you don't want to accept that bad shit is happening in the world. This has absolutely fuck-all to do with cancel culture and everything to do with selfish people spreading a dangerous disease.
You can make the same argument about seatbelts. The majority of people wear seatbelts because they've been asked to and they understand the danger of not wearing a seatbelt, for both themselves and their fellow passengers. But some fraction of people simply don't care, and well-intentioned people even have a tendency to say "oh just this one time." And that's why we need enforcement.
Look at this like engineering. With a large enough system, you are always going to have some components that fail. When your network has a million machines, you don't get upset when a server goes down, you just engineer some tolerance into your network, define processes to handle them, and go on with your life.
Human life is not redundant. Moreover unless you're able to outright deny people medical care for their negligence (which we can't do), unnecessary Coronavirus cases put more burden on everyone. Just like seatbelts -- even if you don't personally care if you get severely injured in a car accident, the EMTs don't have the ability to just leave your selfish ass dying on the side of the road, even if you want them to. You just wasted a lot of other people's time, energy, and money as a result of your carelessness.
If you can take simple measures to prevent components from failing, you should, especially when component failure is an expensive and intrusive proposition, even if it doesn't mean the total failure of the system.
Not to mention the fact that humans are notoriously bad at making rational utility-maximizing decisions. People often only come to regret their actions only after they've been forced to face serious consequences for their actions. Yes, this is slightly paternalistic, but it's yet another argument in favor of enforcing quarantine-like laws with actual penalties.
You can make the same argument about seatbelts. The majority of people wear seatbelts because they've been asked to and they understand the danger of not wearing a seatbelt, for both themselves and their fellow passengers. But some fraction of people simply don't care, and well-intentioned people even have a tendency to say "oh just this one time." And that's why we need enforcement.
Look at this like engineering. With a large enough system, you are always going to have some components that fail. When your network has a million machines, you don't get upset when a server goes down, you just engineer some tolerance into your network, define processes to handle them, and go on with your life.
Human life is not redundant. Moreover unless you're able to outright deny people medical care for their negligence (which we can't do), unnecessary Coronavirus cases put more burden on everyone. Just like seatbelts -- even if you don't personally care if you get severely injured in a car accident, the EMTs don't have the ability to just leave your selfish ass dying on the side of the road, even if you want them to. You just wasted a lot of other people's time, energy, and money as a result of your carelessness.
If you can take simple measures to prevent components from failing, you should, especially when component failure is an expensive and intrusive proposition, even if it doesn't mean the total failure of the system.
Not to mention the fact that humans are notoriously bad at making rational utility-maximizing decisions. People often only come to regret their actions only after they've been forced to face serious consequences for their actions. Yes, this is slightly paternalistic, but it's yet another argument in favor of enforcing quarantine-like laws with actual penalties.
> Sounds more like you don't want to accept that bad shit is happening in the world.
What you accept and what you choose to spend your precious finite attention on are not the same thing.
If anything, what I suggest is the opposite of what you're saying. I do accept that some small fraction of people will do dumb shit, as they have through time immemorial. And, because I accept that, I feel no need to waste my time and emotional energy reading about it on social media and getting all outraged about it.
> And that's why we need enforcement.
Sure, but what we don't need is every social media site plastering pictures of people not wearing seatbelts with headlines like "Look at this horrid fucker not wearing their seatbelt! How can they be so thoughtless?!"
> Moreover unless you're able to outright deny people medical care for their negligence (which we can't do), unnecessary Coronavirus cases put more burden on everyone.
I fully understand the implications of non-compliance with social distancing measures. I don't agree with people who aren't doing it.
What I am saying is that it is not beneficial to crowd social media with stories of those people. After you read a Reddit thread about some selfish assholes partying up in Miami... then what? What is the action? I'm not going to personally fly to Miami and scold them. Me consuming that story has added nothing of value to my life, nor has it materially addressed the problem in any way.
All it does us make me feel angry and shitty. I've got enough bad feelings floating around because of, you know, the global pandemic. I don't need impotent manufactured outrage on top of that. What I and others need to get through the day are reminders of all of the good that people are doing.
And those same reminders are also a good way to encourage people to do what they're supposed to do. Do you want to live in a world where we teach people who to be by giving them heroes to aspire to, or by having the threat of public shaming and punishment looming over them 24/7?
What you accept and what you choose to spend your precious finite attention on are not the same thing.
If anything, what I suggest is the opposite of what you're saying. I do accept that some small fraction of people will do dumb shit, as they have through time immemorial. And, because I accept that, I feel no need to waste my time and emotional energy reading about it on social media and getting all outraged about it.
> And that's why we need enforcement.
Sure, but what we don't need is every social media site plastering pictures of people not wearing seatbelts with headlines like "Look at this horrid fucker not wearing their seatbelt! How can they be so thoughtless?!"
> Moreover unless you're able to outright deny people medical care for their negligence (which we can't do), unnecessary Coronavirus cases put more burden on everyone.
I fully understand the implications of non-compliance with social distancing measures. I don't agree with people who aren't doing it.
What I am saying is that it is not beneficial to crowd social media with stories of those people. After you read a Reddit thread about some selfish assholes partying up in Miami... then what? What is the action? I'm not going to personally fly to Miami and scold them. Me consuming that story has added nothing of value to my life, nor has it materially addressed the problem in any way.
All it does us make me feel angry and shitty. I've got enough bad feelings floating around because of, you know, the global pandemic. I don't need impotent manufactured outrage on top of that. What I and others need to get through the day are reminders of all of the good that people are doing.
And those same reminders are also a good way to encourage people to do what they're supposed to do. Do you want to live in a world where we teach people who to be by giving them heroes to aspire to, or by having the threat of public shaming and punishment looming over them 24/7?
A serious problem with outrage culture is exhaustion. The latest outrage is always an 11 on a scale of 10. For a couple of years that's ok. But apathy is the normal end result of constant outrage.
I wear my seatbelt whenever I go for a drive. But I also have a motorcycle license. Your rhetoric seems equally applicable to regarding everyone on a motorcycle as a sociopath and/or deviant.
When I read this sort of angry screed it scares me because it suggests to me that people are unstable, that behavior and reasoning can suddenly change due to switching contexts.
When I read this sort of angry screed it scares me because it suggests to me that people are unstable, that behavior and reasoning can suddenly change due to switching contexts.
regarding everyone on a motorcycle as a sociopath and/or deviant
As a society we have accepted that a safe and responsible motorcycle operator should be allowed to do their thing, and that the freedom (and convenience) is worth the increased risk compared to a car.
Moreover, how much of an increased risk does a responsible motorcycle operator actually pose compared to a car operator, without other vehicles involved?
IMO you should be subject to serious and increased legal penalties for reckless driving (failing to signal, etc.) when a safely-operated motorcycle is nearby. And likewise for motorcyclists who speed down the highway threading between lanes should.
You're also not the first person on the Internet to bring up the motorcycle false equivalence as a counterargument to disease control methods like this. Not sure what to make of that.
it suggests to me that people are unstable, that behavior and reasoning can suddenly change due to switching contexts
This is pretty much true in my experience. You can look up a field called "behavioral economics" if you don't want to take my word for it.
angry screed
Why do I even bother? Is everything you disagree with an "angry screed"?
As a society we have accepted that a safe and responsible motorcycle operator should be allowed to do their thing, and that the freedom (and convenience) is worth the increased risk compared to a car.
Moreover, how much of an increased risk does a responsible motorcycle operator actually pose compared to a car operator, without other vehicles involved?
IMO you should be subject to serious and increased legal penalties for reckless driving (failing to signal, etc.) when a safely-operated motorcycle is nearby. And likewise for motorcyclists who speed down the highway threading between lanes should.
You're also not the first person on the Internet to bring up the motorcycle false equivalence as a counterargument to disease control methods like this. Not sure what to make of that.
it suggests to me that people are unstable, that behavior and reasoning can suddenly change due to switching contexts
This is pretty much true in my experience. You can look up a field called "behavioral economics" if you don't want to take my word for it.
angry screed
Why do I even bother? Is everything you disagree with an "angry screed"?
"Is everything you disagree with an "angry screed"?"
No. But my threshold may be lower than it used to be, because I'm worrying lately about how other people react to stress under current circumstances.
"As a society we have accepted that a safe and responsible motorcycle operator should be allowed to do their thing"
I'm not sure if you can really prove that "as a society we have accepted..." something, but assuming we have, my point was how arbitrary it is. We draw a little box around different things, and motorcycles only have to be safe relative to motorcycle norms, while cars have to be safe relative to car norms. And norms differ from country to country.
That doesn't mean I'm necessarily on a crusade to break down that sort of compartmentalization, I just alternately read people questioning it and people taking it for granted, so I tend to think of the other side either way.
No. But my threshold may be lower than it used to be, because I'm worrying lately about how other people react to stress under current circumstances.
"As a society we have accepted that a safe and responsible motorcycle operator should be allowed to do their thing"
I'm not sure if you can really prove that "as a society we have accepted..." something, but assuming we have, my point was how arbitrary it is. We draw a little box around different things, and motorcycles only have to be safe relative to motorcycle norms, while cars have to be safe relative to car norms. And norms differ from country to country.
That doesn't mean I'm necessarily on a crusade to break down that sort of compartmentalization, I just alternately read people questioning it and people taking it for granted, so I tend to think of the other side either way.
What does "cancel culture" have to do with containment measures taken in response to a global pandemic?
I think the applicable concept concept is that cancle culture is ineffective at changing minds and a more compassionate approach is more appropriate in both the short and long run.
Hate and shame feeds reactionary behavior and is counter productive. If you disagree with someone, empathize with them as a human being and explain how their behavior is hurting others
Hate and shame feeds reactionary behavior and is counter productive. If you disagree with someone, empathize with them as a human being and explain how their behavior is hurting others
Hate and shame are evolutionary mechanisms to get people to follow group norms. As long as they hurt (something you seem to accept), people will try to avoid them.
It’s also worth noting that these are mild measures compared to the other stick societies like to use, criminal law. If people felt confident that rapists were prosecuted not just in cases where their victims number in the dozens (Weinstein, Crosby), they wouldn’t feel the need to use social and economic pressure.
It's also nothing new: "In Ancient Greece the Athenians had a procedure known as "ostracism" in which all citizens could write a person's name on a shard of broken pottery (called ostraka) and place it in a large container in a public place. If an individual's name was written a sufficient number of times, he was "ostracized"—banished from the city for ten years. This was normally practiced against individuals who had behaved in some way that offended the community."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(person)
It’s also worth noting that these are mild measures compared to the other stick societies like to use, criminal law. If people felt confident that rapists were prosecuted not just in cases where their victims number in the dozens (Weinstein, Crosby), they wouldn’t feel the need to use social and economic pressure.
It's also nothing new: "In Ancient Greece the Athenians had a procedure known as "ostracism" in which all citizens could write a person's name on a shard of broken pottery (called ostraka) and place it in a large container in a public place. If an individual's name was written a sufficient number of times, he was "ostracized"—banished from the city for ten years. This was normally practiced against individuals who had behaved in some way that offended the community."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcast_(person)
Yes, but those mechanisms evolved when shaming meant doing so in person to someone in front of a dozen other people in a hunter-gatherer society.
That same mechanism amplified by social media is no longer as adaptive. It's natural and fairly reasonable to snap at someone if they are rude to you. But if you jam a bullhorn in their face and yell into that, it's no longer appropriate. The emotion and impulse are the same, but the technology changes the manifestation of them.
That same mechanism amplified by social media is no longer as adaptive. It's natural and fairly reasonable to snap at someone if they are rude to you. But if you jam a bullhorn in their face and yell into that, it's no longer appropriate. The emotion and impulse are the same, but the technology changes the manifestation of them.
Tactics which evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago and worked in societies of 50 people are not all applicable today. Some actively lead to the division and extremism we we see today in our society
Mob rule killed Socrates
OP seem to be saying it’s “rocking the boat”, i. e. he is pining for a nice and orderly world where people just get along.
And while he sees that it’s impossible to stop every single rapist, he’s willing to settle for victims just not bothering him with it.
And while he sees that it’s impossible to stop every single rapist, he’s willing to settle for victims just not bothering him with it.
I posted above the speculative concept of crisis fatigue, which may lead to decreased harmony in a society.
Probably the only time it's appropriate for outrage culture and to focus on the negative is exactly right now.
Shame and tell everyone whenever possible to stay the fuck inside because those are going to be the people that make you stay in lockdown for 6 months instead of 2.
Otherwise this will be 10x worse in the US
Shame and tell everyone whenever possible to stay the fuck inside because those are going to be the people that make you stay in lockdown for 6 months instead of 2.
Otherwise this will be 10x worse in the US
It appears Seattle may have "flattened the curve" too much as new cases have flatlined.
Sounds good!? But healthy young people aren't building up antibodies.
Which means when we end social distancing, the virus will start spreading just like it did before.
The goal here isn't to prevent everyone from getting it. The goal is to slowly build up heard immunity, in a way that doesn't overly burden the healthcare system, and to hopefully learn some new treatments along the way.
https://depts.washington.edu/uwviro/
Sounds good!? But healthy young people aren't building up antibodies.
Which means when we end social distancing, the virus will start spreading just like it did before.
The goal here isn't to prevent everyone from getting it. The goal is to slowly build up heard immunity, in a way that doesn't overly burden the healthcare system, and to hopefully learn some new treatments along the way.
https://depts.washington.edu/uwviro/
I am not so sure herd immunity is a goal. The idea is indeed to avoid overrunning the healthcare system, with an expectation that we can get the majority of the population successfully through the system. It's not well-known that we'll build even short term immunity, let alone long to medium term immunity.
If new cases flatline, that's good! If we can avoid everyone getting it, that's even better! If the globe can get a handle on things, we don't need to solely consider worst-case scenarios.
If new cases flatline, that's good! If we can avoid everyone getting it, that's even better! If the globe can get a handle on things, we don't need to solely consider worst-case scenarios.
Building up herd immunity without overwhelming the hospital system would take years. Instead we need to prevent spread as much as possible while testing is ramped up. Once we have free, fast, widespread testing, we can remove restrictions without risking new outbreaks, because new cases will be caught quickly.
It is likely possible to engineer a vaccine for this virus. If we can social distance long enough to get that out, people's lives are saved.
No, it won't. If people mingle and fail to "flatten the curve", the whole mess will be over sooner, albeit with more dead old people. If you believe you can starve the virus of hosts, you're delusional.
What about China and South Korea? It's possible, but people do need to be more responsible
Old people are not the only ones dying.
Data from an Italian study:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-tho...
Median age is 80.5. That's actually near the life expectancy of an Italian male.
99% of fatalities were among people with a prior illness.
About half of the deaths were people suffering from three or more other illnesses.
To put it very bluntly, a lot of the folks dying from COVID-19 were already dying. COVID-19 is the straw that broke the camel's back.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-tho...
Median age is 80.5. That's actually near the life expectancy of an Italian male.
99% of fatalities were among people with a prior illness.
About half of the deaths were people suffering from three or more other illnesses.
To put it very bluntly, a lot of the folks dying from COVID-19 were already dying. COVID-19 is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Does that take into account people dying of other treatable causes because they couldn't get care because of the surge of COVID-19 cases?
The more interesting question is how many of those non-fatlities only survived thanks to access to intensive care and ventilation?
Maybe it’s almost entirely elderly people because doctors making triage decisions favor the young?
You might be deadly wrong.
About half of those infected in New York City are under 50
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
...preliminary figures released on Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that adults ages 20 to 44 represent nearly one-third of U.S. coronavirus patients whose ages are known.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/health/coronavirus-millen...
About half of those infected in New York City are under 50
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/nyregion/coronavirus-new-...
...preliminary figures released on Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that adults ages 20 to 44 represent nearly one-third of U.S. coronavirus patients whose ages are known.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/health/coronavirus-millen...
Anyone can get infected of course. Does that surprise you? The study was regarding fatalities.
In any case, it's not me who you're calling "deadly" wrong, it's the Italian Ministry of Health.
In any case, it's not me who you're calling "deadly" wrong, it's the Italian Ministry of Health.
CDC published numbers on Wednesday night that 40% of hospitalizations for COVID-19 in the US are adults younger than the age of 54.
Sure they're not fatalities, but do you really want to go to an overcrowded hospital for COVID-19? (Will be worse when ventilators run out and hospitalization can't help you nearly as much)
Sure they're not fatalities, but do you really want to go to an overcrowded hospital for COVID-19? (Will be worse when ventilators run out and hospitalization can't help you nearly as much)
Only 2.8% of all hospitalizations that required an ICU were people under 45 years old, though, and we have no idea what underlying health problems they may have had.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm
The second link summarizes how unhealthy are millenials. What will happen when ICU capacity is not enough? There was another study suggesting that being exposed to the virus fast vs slow makes the difference, can't find it now. Crowded hospitals with millenials will surely make a difference for all.
As an "old people", I thank you for your consideration and concern.
You're welcome.
If you live, remember to vote progressively on housing and other things that your generation has a death grip on.
If you pass, my condolences: It wasn't personal, merely generational.
With some remaining respect,
Young People
If you live, remember to vote progressively on housing and other things that your generation has a death grip on.
If you pass, my condolences: It wasn't personal, merely generational.
With some remaining respect,
Young People
[deleted]
[deleted]
> But we are already inundated by outrage journalism, cancel culture, and public shaming. The last thing we need is more of that.
Where does this fear mongering come from? I’m absolutely sick of people dropping this bullshit without anything to show people what they’re referring to. It’s certainly harmful to society and coordinating anything but the first attempted response.
Where does this fear mongering come from? I’m absolutely sick of people dropping this bullshit without anything to show people what they’re referring to. It’s certainly harmful to society and coordinating anything but the first attempted response.
No amount of complaints about 'cancel culture' or what not is gonna stop me from shaming people very loudly for not washing their hands.
Wash your damn hands.
Wash your damn hands.
Unfortunately, a lot of people haven't learned the lesson they were supposed to learn from "The boy who cried 'wolf'".
Nobody's inundated by cancel culture except the reactionaries that obsessively make it their straw man.
Man, I can tell you the amount of ignorance still prevalent out there. Not in some bushwhack undeveloped middle of nowhere, but in the biggest cities in Switzerland. So many people just don't give a nanofraction of a fuck. If you ignore those, things will get worse, much much much worse than they should.
Just a look at China now, and then on Italy. Seriously, what.the.fuck
Just a look at China now, and then on Italy. Seriously, what.the.fuck
> But we are already inundated by outrage journalism, cancel culture, and public shaming. The last thing we need is more of that.
The problem with "outrage culture" isn't the outrage; it's the target of the outrage. This is real stuff, consequential, non-trivial. It's good to be outraged when people behave outrageously. It's not so good when what you're trying to do is get a stranger fired for a tweet you could easily have ignored. This isn't that.
The problem with "outrage culture" isn't the outrage; it's the target of the outrage. This is real stuff, consequential, non-trivial. It's good to be outraged when people behave outrageously. It's not so good when what you're trying to do is get a stranger fired for a tweet you could easily have ignored. This isn't that.
Ignoring tweets, it turns out, made the situation worse over time.
As the Internet just becomes another part of the real world (down from the lofty "alternate universe" it was imagined it would be in the cyberpunk era), I'm 100% on board with people having real-world consequences for bad online behavior.
As the Internet just becomes another part of the real world (down from the lofty "alternate universe" it was imagined it would be in the cyberpunk era), I'm 100% on board with people having real-world consequences for bad online behavior.
[deleted]
It may be good - the outcome determines if it is good.
We do not know the outcome because it lies in the future, but the human mind provides the host such a high resolution image of it that it can easily be mistaken for actual reality if one isn't disciplined.
We do not know the outcome because it lies in the future, but the human mind provides the host such a high resolution image of it that it can easily be mistaken for actual reality if one isn't disciplined.
> It may be good - the outcome determines if it is good.
I'm not strongly committed to the argument that it's good. A better word might be "appropriate" or "justified." The point is that this kind of outrage is very different from what we normally call "outrage culture." The implication in a phrase like "outrage culture" isn't that outrage is an invalid human emotion; it's that it's not being tuned/targeted correctly.
I'm not strongly committed to the argument that it's good. A better word might be "appropriate" or "justified." The point is that this kind of outrage is very different from what we normally call "outrage culture." The implication in a phrase like "outrage culture" isn't that outrage is an invalid human emotion; it's that it's not being tuned/targeted correctly.
That's fair enough, I was simply improving your comment.
I have a theory that cultures that value (and I mean truly value) clean, rational thinking, will be superior in not only reacting to these sorts of crises, but preventing them in the first place.
If one looks very carefully at the nature of most of the discussions taking place in the memeplex on covid-19 and a variety of other hot button topics, one thing you will notice is that there is a breathtaking amount of not just confusion, but delusion. People's internal mental models of the world do not match observable reality - it's been this way for a very long time (well, it's always been this way technically, and always will, to a degree), and it seems to me that it's getting worse at an increasing rate.
I think this is a material problem, I believe it can be observed (manually, and perhaps somehow algorithmically - we have petabytes of data to mine), and I believe something can be done about it. But first, people have to be willing to look.
I have a theory that cultures that value (and I mean truly value) clean, rational thinking, will be superior in not only reacting to these sorts of crises, but preventing them in the first place.
If one looks very carefully at the nature of most of the discussions taking place in the memeplex on covid-19 and a variety of other hot button topics, one thing you will notice is that there is a breathtaking amount of not just confusion, but delusion. People's internal mental models of the world do not match observable reality - it's been this way for a very long time (well, it's always been this way technically, and always will, to a degree), and it seems to me that it's getting worse at an increasing rate.
I think this is a material problem, I believe it can be observed (manually, and perhaps somehow algorithmically - we have petabytes of data to mine), and I believe something can be done about it. But first, people have to be willing to look.
I think the world would be a better place if people were willing to explain why they disagree with (perceived to be) differing perspectives. The love/hate relationship we seem to have with facts and truth and these sorts of things also seems suboptimal.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/940/counterspee...
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/940/counterspee...
Cuomo is a pragmatist above all else. The mission is flatten the curve. If some asshole decides to have a party and get people sick, that is awful, but the 10 other people who follow the rules will be at lower risk.
Instead of the California approach, where you say "don't this, except for reasons 1 ... n", he's attacking the demand side. You can go out, but you don't have anywhere to go.
All of the problems get worse if you make people panic. My buddy who lives in northern upstate NY was just telling me about all of the people "bugging out" and taking their RVs up to the Adirondacks. If you tell people it's martial law, people will flee NYC Metro for wherever.
The other thing is that people will always be out. How do you deal with homeless people? Arrest them? How do you deal with people who claim to be medical people? How do you identify Trader Joe's employees? Are the police going to setup roadblocks? How do the police maintain a rosette stone of who is worthy of travel and who isnt?
Instead of the California approach, where you say "don't this, except for reasons 1 ... n", he's attacking the demand side. You can go out, but you don't have anywhere to go.
All of the problems get worse if you make people panic. My buddy who lives in northern upstate NY was just telling me about all of the people "bugging out" and taking their RVs up to the Adirondacks. If you tell people it's martial law, people will flee NYC Metro for wherever.
The other thing is that people will always be out. How do you deal with homeless people? Arrest them? How do you deal with people who claim to be medical people? How do you identify Trader Joe's employees? Are the police going to setup roadblocks? How do the police maintain a rosette stone of who is worthy of travel and who isnt?
It's a reasonable approach. Let's hope Cuomo retains the ability to block NYC full lockdown (which is physically unenforceable and would have at best a marginal impact).
Facebook and Google sometimes use the expression "one in a million" to describe edge/exception cases which occur every day when you serve many users. The density of NYC is a real-world equivalent, there are continuous exceptions that cannot be centrally predicted and must be micro-locally responded.
There has to be non-zero social interaction of young people who are least at risk, and can recover most quickly. Otherwise the only people being exposed will be essential workers. After recovery, these young people can volunteer to train/run errands for hospitals, reducing load on the system and keeping them active.
In times of crisis, civilians working with each other can make a difference. Wish they had used the language "physical distancing" since people can still coordinate socially (including online).
Facebook and Google sometimes use the expression "one in a million" to describe edge/exception cases which occur every day when you serve many users. The density of NYC is a real-world equivalent, there are continuous exceptions that cannot be centrally predicted and must be micro-locally responded.
There has to be non-zero social interaction of young people who are least at risk, and can recover most quickly. Otherwise the only people being exposed will be essential workers. After recovery, these young people can volunteer to train/run errands for hospitals, reducing load on the system and keeping them active.
In times of crisis, civilians working with each other can make a difference. Wish they had used the language "physical distancing" since people can still coordinate socially (including online).
Even if people meet socially outside of work, they still aren't _required_ to go to work. Which means a lot of people can practice social distancing. People are scared, many will avoid groups (others may throw parties, but can't help that).
I know in my neighborhood, everyone is outside but we are all maintaining 2 meter distance. Some neighbors even brought up their grills and stayed seperate but can talk (at a distance).
I know in my neighborhood, everyone is outside but we are all maintaining 2 meter distance. Some neighbors even brought up their grills and stayed seperate but can talk (at a distance).
> but can't help that
They're fining (~$140) and detaining people who don't follow the rules in France.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
They're fining (~$140) and detaining people who don't follow the rules in France.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=https%3...
Doing that in the US is a Supreme Court case waiting to happen.
States have pretty broad police powers especially in times of crisis. It wouldn't surprise me to see the 10th Amendment apply to the state action of enforcing massive quarantines.
While that's definitely true, this is also inherently running up agains the Bill of Rights. Police powers are not unbounded so as this continues (and especially as it subsides), I expect legitimate unanswered questions of Constitutionality could come into play.
Maybe, let's see how it works out. I have no skin in this game. Numbers will talk in the next weeks and months, in the meantime all I can say is that I'm glad I'm not in the US right now.
The Supreme Court (and other courts) have held mandatory quarantines to be legal, including of entire areas and not just persons known to be infected.
It would logically follow that if the quarantine is legal, penalties for violating it are also legal.
---------------
Most of those cases are quite old, but they're still the ruling precedent on the topic as far as my (limited) knowledge goes.
For one that went to the Supreme Court in 1902 and continues to be cited:
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
It would logically follow that if the quarantine is legal, penalties for violating it are also legal.
---------------
Most of those cases are quite old, but they're still the ruling precedent on the topic as far as my (limited) knowledge goes.
For one that went to the Supreme Court in 1902 and continues to be cited:
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_Francaise_de_Navigat...
If enforcement action happens now, we'll still have a functional Supreme Court around in a year in order to debate it.
Doubt it, and in any case, that would be years down the line. It wouldn't help you one whit if you've got police ordering you back into your house now.
Which might be reasonable if there are flagrant violators and things continue to get worse.
Which might be reasonable if there are flagrant violators and things continue to get worse.
People are still having 200+ person weddings in Williamsburg as of this week. Absolutely crazy to me as a resident of the neighborhood:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/Coronavirus-broo...
"Concern over the spread of coronavirus in Hasidic communities had already been raised by a series of large weddings held this week. On Tuesday, the Fire Department broke up one wedding celebration in Williamsburg that had more than 200 guests."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/Coronavirus-broo...
"Concern over the spread of coronavirus in Hasidic communities had already been raised by a series of large weddings held this week. On Tuesday, the Fire Department broke up one wedding celebration in Williamsburg that had more than 200 guests."
> > There is currently no plan in place to penalize individuals for gathering socially
> Then people won't take the rules seriously.
What should the government do to these people? Arrest them?
Already there are news headlines saying "US jails begin releasing prisoners to stem Covid-19 infections"[1][2]
and from that article, specifically relating to New York:
"New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday that city officials will this week identify individuals for release, including people who were arrested for minor crimes and those most vulnerable to infection due to underlying health problems.
"His announcement came hours after a guard and a prisoner tested positive for coronavirus at Rikers Island prison..
"Other New York prisons, such as Sing Sing, have had inmates test positive for coronavirus and one employee for the state's corrections department has died from it."
These prisons are breeding grounds for disease: "sinks often lack soap and hand sanitiser is considered contraband due to its alcohol content", and medical care in US prisons is often atrocious.
So by imprisoning people in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions you might effectively be giving them a death sentence and possibly putting the other inmates at risk from the people that came in from the outside world.
Another good article on the serious vulnerability of prisons during this outbreak: [3]
[1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51947802
[2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22632901
[3] - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/17/21181515/c...
> Then people won't take the rules seriously.
What should the government do to these people? Arrest them?
Already there are news headlines saying "US jails begin releasing prisoners to stem Covid-19 infections"[1][2]
and from that article, specifically relating to New York:
"New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday that city officials will this week identify individuals for release, including people who were arrested for minor crimes and those most vulnerable to infection due to underlying health problems.
"His announcement came hours after a guard and a prisoner tested positive for coronavirus at Rikers Island prison..
"Other New York prisons, such as Sing Sing, have had inmates test positive for coronavirus and one employee for the state's corrections department has died from it."
These prisons are breeding grounds for disease: "sinks often lack soap and hand sanitiser is considered contraband due to its alcohol content", and medical care in US prisons is often atrocious.
So by imprisoning people in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions you might effectively be giving them a death sentence and possibly putting the other inmates at risk from the people that came in from the outside world.
Another good article on the serious vulnerability of prisons during this outbreak: [3]
[1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51947802
[2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22632901
[3] - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/3/17/21181515/c...
> What should the government do to these people? Arrest them?
In France, people get a fine for being outside without a good reason. In some cases, they also get arrested. Police can be dissuasive, even if (almost) no one will be put into jail.
In France, people get a fine for being outside without a good reason. In some cases, they also get arrested. Police can be dissuasive, even if (almost) no one will be put into jail.
> Arrest them?
Why not? Couldn't you postpone the prison time for a later point in time? Or make them pay fees right away (and a high fee).
Why not? Couldn't you postpone the prison time for a later point in time? Or make them pay fees right away (and a high fee).
Homeless? Quarantine in a hotel. Not homeless and income or wealth <100k? $100 fine per occurrence. Plus $10 every week of non payment without proof of financial hardship.
Not homeless and income or wealth > 100k? 1% annual gross income or net wealth (greater of both) per occurrence with a 1% daily compounding interest rate of the principal amount until paid in full. If third incident mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment and $1,000,000 fine or 50% wealth whichevers greater. Non payment prevents release.
Not homeless and income or wealth > 100k? 1% annual gross income or net wealth (greater of both) per occurrence with a 1% daily compounding interest rate of the principal amount until paid in full. If third incident mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment and $1,000,000 fine or 50% wealth whichevers greater. Non payment prevents release.
[deleted]
And these people's actions are a potential death sentence for many others.
I've driven past a park yesterday, five miles away from the center of the outbreak in the US.
It was packed to the grills with schoolchildren in the playground, and their parents watching.
People aren't taking the rules seriously until you shut things down.
It was packed to the grills with schoolchildren in the playground, and their parents watching.
People aren't taking the rules seriously until you shut things down.
The more usual expression would be "packed to the gills", but in the context of American parks, perhaps "grills" is an appropriate word after all!
Heck I saw people on HN say California is overreacting...
If the Post is to be believed they are just moving to the Hamptons and socializing -
https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/we-should-blow-up-the-bridges-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J60fQr0GWo
a top hospital in Italy's richest area overwhelmed by the virus.
It seems coronavirus denialism is widespread in the same demographics that espouse climate change denialism.
Legally, does the state and federal goverment have the power to control the movement of people?
Does the state have the power to control my movement from my own home to the end of the street for my daily walk?
Does the state have the power to control my movement from my own home to the end of the street for my daily walk?
Of course they have the power: they have the guns. That's not the real question; the real questions are 1) whether the populace will tolerate it, and how much; 2) whether the state's forces will willingly open fire on intolerant citizens; 3) whether the state chooses to use the power, whether legal or not.
You mean like they did at Kent State?
>Legally, does the state and federal goverment have the power to control the movement of people?
Yes and no. I was curious, too.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/mass-quarantine-lockdown...
Yes and no. I was curious, too.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/mass-quarantine-lockdown...
Wouldn't this fall under 'martial law'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_Stat...
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
I guess the legal argument comes down to a lack of a comma between 'invasion' and 'the public safety'. Or whether a virus constitutes 'invasion'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_Stat...
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
I guess the legal argument comes down to a lack of a comma between 'invasion' and 'the public safety'. Or whether a virus constitutes 'invasion'.
Habeas corpus isn’t the issue here. It’s 1st / 5th / 14th amendment issues:
- 1st: Right to peacefully assemble
- 14th “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
5th has similar text to 14th.
To be clear: I’m not arguing that the various govts. can’t impose quarantines or isolation orders, I’m just outlining which parts of the constitution are relevant to the legal questions.
- 1st: Right to peacefully assemble
- 14th “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
5th has similar text to 14th.
To be clear: I’m not arguing that the various govts. can’t impose quarantines or isolation orders, I’m just outlining which parts of the constitution are relevant to the legal questions.
Thanks. And same – I'm not advocating one way or the other, simply wanting to understand the constitutionality.
The answer to this question is always yes regardless of the government in dire circumstances. That's why there are some of these laws on the books for quarantine in the first place from 1918.
That being said, it's a big scary step and there are lots of little steps likely to be taken before we get that far. You can see this in action in Italy.
That being said, it's a big scary step and there are lots of little steps likely to be taken before we get that far. You can see this in action in Italy.
This is a good recent summary for non-lawyers https://thedispatch.com/p/the-police-power-of-the-states-to
It is called quarantine, and yes they do, under certain circumstances.
Yes, this is a long-recognized aspect of the states’ police power.
Why is the damage bad? Why not thin the population? Think about the looming stress due to the boomers living longer. If they die, housing becomes affordable. Assets move to the younger generation. Debts get canceled because their is no one left in the estate to pay. Think of this as a fire that thins the forest. New growth will come up.
And all of these 'upsides' will occur regardless in a few years. Why hasten economic benefit at the cost of human life? Economic benefit is only of benefit to human being so it's not an arguable equation.
So we start with your parents and grandparents? Think of all those lovely assets you will get.
Do they have a definition of what constitutes non-essential?
Yes, the order has a specific list.
EDIT: Here is the order.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-2026-continuing-temporar...
> Any essential business or entity providing essential services or functions shall not be subject to the in-person restrictions. This includes essential health care operations including research and laboratory services; essential infrastructure including utilities, telecommunication, airports and transportation infrastructure; essential manufacturing, including food processing and pharmaceuticals; essential retail including grocery stores and pharmacies; essential services including trash collection, mail, and shipping services; news media; banks and related financial institutions; providers of basic necessities to economically disadvantaged populations; construction; vendors of essential services necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation and essential operations of residences or other essential businesses; vendors that provide essential services or products, including logistics and technology support, child care and services needed to ensure the continuing operation of government agencies and provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public;
EDIT: Here is the order.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/no-2026-continuing-temporar...
> Any essential business or entity providing essential services or functions shall not be subject to the in-person restrictions. This includes essential health care operations including research and laboratory services; essential infrastructure including utilities, telecommunication, airports and transportation infrastructure; essential manufacturing, including food processing and pharmaceuticals; essential retail including grocery stores and pharmacies; essential services including trash collection, mail, and shipping services; news media; banks and related financial institutions; providers of basic necessities to economically disadvantaged populations; construction; vendors of essential services necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation and essential operations of residences or other essential businesses; vendors that provide essential services or products, including logistics and technology support, child care and services needed to ensure the continuing operation of government agencies and provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public;
[deleted]
Thanks for linking this. Glad to see the scope of this is rather wide. We have a single confirmed non-resident case in this county.
It felt like the scope of the whole state was too wide considering the lack of cases near us. And without any definite financial assistance in place. Hoping something more definite comes soon as I know multiple people who are affected by this order.
It felt like the scope of the whole state was too wide considering the lack of cases near us. And without any definite financial assistance in place. Hoping something more definite comes soon as I know multiple people who are affected by this order.
I watched the press conference and he said that they'd have a list later this afternoon. Food delivery is essential. One of the reporters asked if IT support (actually Best Buy's "Geek Squad") was essential, and he said he didn't know.
My impression is that "essential" is very liberal right now.
My impression is that "essential" is very liberal right now.
Usually defined by each company for each position.
I feel like we should just do this nation wide.
USA is huge, and the virus is hitting different areas with different intensities. Its spread is heavily impacted by population density and rates of random social encounters. A Nationwide lockdown might make sense if the goal was to snuff the infection out, but as of now the goal is to lower the peak of the curve. If you lock down too early, you extend the infection to a length of time that makes the lockdown impossible.
I agree... it doesn't make sense to just throw a blanket lock down over the whole county indiscriminately. Same goes for state governors to throw these blanket shutdowns of bars a restaurants over the whole state at once.
I don't understand why we can't take a more localize approach to this. Maybe only implement the lock downs in the worst areas, or areas entering acceleration phase. Can't we be smarter about this?
We don't even know if it will snuff the infection out. It might just be kicking the can down the road. In my area, it is still very low risk. Meanwhile, businesses are already beginning to shut down, and people's are loosing their livelihoods.
I don't understand why we can't take a more localize approach to this. Maybe only implement the lock downs in the worst areas, or areas entering acceleration phase. Can't we be smarter about this?
We don't even know if it will snuff the infection out. It might just be kicking the can down the road. In my area, it is still very low risk. Meanwhile, businesses are already beginning to shut down, and people's are loosing their livelihoods.
Without out adequate testing, we can't know where to localize the lockdowns to.
Agreed, I don't understand why there isn't a concerted effort to ramp up testing. NYC is doing this now, part of the reason their total cases are going so high so quickly. Lockdown makes sense for them right now. The medical facilities are starting to feel the pressure.
This is true, but you don't need blanket testing to have adequate testing for estimation of community spread. There is a fantastic video here[1] that covers the specifics, but basically we know enough about how the virus spreads that if we just track who is in the hospital or dead from the virus, we can estimate its state of community spread, and thus know when to lock down.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCa0JXEwDEk
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCa0JXEwDEk
> If you lock down too early, you extend the infection to a length of time that makes the lockdown impossible.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
Poster seems to be thinking about the "UK approach" which is declared to be managing the situation until population immunity catches up and helps snuff it out.
But, since we're starting from zero natural immunity and a virulent disease with long hospitalizations, if you actually do the math here it never works - there's no situation where you can keep the number of infected low enough to not use up too many hospital beds and also high enough to get population immunity in any reasonable period of time. Those values simply don't overlap (which apparently someone has told the UK now, I guess).
The only viable approach is massive lockdowns to reduce the number of infected to a reasonable number followed by super-aggressive public health interventions for each and every infected person to control future spread.
But, since we're starting from zero natural immunity and a virulent disease with long hospitalizations, if you actually do the math here it never works - there's no situation where you can keep the number of infected low enough to not use up too many hospital beds and also high enough to get population immunity in any reasonable period of time. Those values simply don't overlap (which apparently someone has told the UK now, I guess).
The only viable approach is massive lockdowns to reduce the number of infected to a reasonable number followed by super-aggressive public health interventions for each and every infected person to control future spread.
You can't have a lockdown for more than a few months, otherwise the economy grinds to a halt and you get something akin to or worse than the great depression.
This virus will be with everyone for 18+ months, the point of the lockdown is allow the Health system to catch up
If you lock down early you irreparably harm the local economy and simply delay a spike instead of "flattening the curve" unless you are willing to except a year long lock down, massive economic depression and the colapse of the US Dollar
If you lock down early you irreparably harm the local economy and simply delay a spike instead of "flattening the curve" unless you are willing to except a year long lock down, massive economic depression and the colapse of the US Dollar
This is happening in my area right now. The number of cases is little to none, but the governor threw a blanket lock down on bars and restaurants, etc, over the whole state. It was too early for my area for sure. So in the meantime, businesses and people's livelihoods are already being destroyed.
The number of infected though is unknown because we haven't tested many people. When it is known then lock down on bars restaurants etc. will be too late.
I live in South Carolina https://www.scdhec.gov/monitoring-testing-covid-19. You are correct testing is still low, but I don't think that data is useless. I don't agree with the notion that it 'will be too late'.
As others have said, the point of a lock down should to prevent the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, prevent ventilator shortages, etc. Nobody even knows if a preemptive lock down can 'squash' the virus. While testing is being ramped up, aren't there other ways to determine outbreaks? Can't our leaders communicate with hospitals and find out number of open beds, ventilators, an influx of patients with suspected symptoms?
It is still going to be around once we come of of hiding, whenever that is, so it's possible we are just delaying the acceleration phase and we end up with the same result later instead of facing it now. I'm not saying there is never a time for a lock down, I just wonder if my local leaders panicked and did it to early, because they didn't know what else to do?
So in my area, the hospitals are fine. People are not flooding in the doors. Meanwhile thousands of jobs & businesses are being torched. My mom is a massage therapist, and is out of work for the foreseeable future. I just think there are smarter ways to go about it.
As others have said, the point of a lock down should to prevent the hospitals from getting overwhelmed, prevent ventilator shortages, etc. Nobody even knows if a preemptive lock down can 'squash' the virus. While testing is being ramped up, aren't there other ways to determine outbreaks? Can't our leaders communicate with hospitals and find out number of open beds, ventilators, an influx of patients with suspected symptoms?
It is still going to be around once we come of of hiding, whenever that is, so it's possible we are just delaying the acceleration phase and we end up with the same result later instead of facing it now. I'm not saying there is never a time for a lock down, I just wonder if my local leaders panicked and did it to early, because they didn't know what else to do?
So in my area, the hospitals are fine. People are not flooding in the doors. Meanwhile thousands of jobs & businesses are being torched. My mom is a massage therapist, and is out of work for the foreseeable future. I just think there are smarter ways to go about it.
> A Nationwide lockdown might make sense if the goal was to snuff the infection out
The goal needs to be to snuff the infection out. Otherwise, we will be like this for the next year and a half while we wait for the vaccine, which IMO is not acceptable when a little extra short-term sacrifice can get us near eradication inside two months.
Also, even if the curve is mediated by density, it seems clear enough that a lack of density is not going to be sufficient to prevent it from becoming a crisis. The infection is spreading even in less dense cities like Atlanta, New Orleans, and Saint Louis.
The goal needs to be to snuff the infection out. Otherwise, we will be like this for the next year and a half while we wait for the vaccine, which IMO is not acceptable when a little extra short-term sacrifice can get us near eradication inside two months.
Also, even if the curve is mediated by density, it seems clear enough that a lack of density is not going to be sufficient to prevent it from becoming a crisis. The infection is spreading even in less dense cities like Atlanta, New Orleans, and Saint Louis.
> a little extra short-term sacrifice can get us near eradication inside two months.
"Near eradication" is not enough if you want to "snuff it out". COVID-19 started with only a couple of cases. There was a patient zero.
So no, "a little extra short-term sacrifice" would not be enough, because you are very unlikely to catch everything, especially worldwide. Health workers would inevitably catch it by treating patients, and you can't just tell the entire world to stay home for 3 weeks. Even if you could snap your fingers and do that and have everyone obey, we don't have the infrastructure to provide worldwide basic needs, for free, for everyone, in an automated way; billions would die.
Mitigation until vaccine is the only sensible way we know of at this time. Gradual lockdowns to help contain the virus for cities and countries that don't have the testing infrastructure available to seriously prevent spread.
We're lucky that this is treated in days/weeks (rather than months/years), and that we have already found a promising treatment (hydroxychloroquine). It'll help the mitigation phase a lot.
Edit: To address "If we adopt a stance that makes R0 < 1, there is no other stochastically possible outcome.": This is untrue if you're time-bounding this to "before we make a generally-available vaccine".
"Near eradication" is not enough if you want to "snuff it out". COVID-19 started with only a couple of cases. There was a patient zero.
So no, "a little extra short-term sacrifice" would not be enough, because you are very unlikely to catch everything, especially worldwide. Health workers would inevitably catch it by treating patients, and you can't just tell the entire world to stay home for 3 weeks. Even if you could snap your fingers and do that and have everyone obey, we don't have the infrastructure to provide worldwide basic needs, for free, for everyone, in an automated way; billions would die.
Mitigation until vaccine is the only sensible way we know of at this time. Gradual lockdowns to help contain the virus for cities and countries that don't have the testing infrastructure available to seriously prevent spread.
We're lucky that this is treated in days/weeks (rather than months/years), and that we have already found a promising treatment (hydroxychloroquine). It'll help the mitigation phase a lot.
Edit: To address "If we adopt a stance that makes R0 < 1, there is no other stochastically possible outcome.": This is untrue if you're time-bounding this to "before we make a generally-available vaccine".
Oh, I don't think near eradication is an acceptable goal either. We need to actually eradicate it. I specified near eradication because we have proof by example that it is possible. As yet, nobody has actually eradicated the virus in their borders, so I don't want to presume it is possible. However, it needs to be the goal.
> To address "If we adopt a stance that makes R0 < 1, there is no other stochastically possible outcome.": This is untrue if you're time-bounding this to "before we make a generally-available vaccine".
Depends on what we get the value to. If we get it to 0.5 or below, as it appears China has done, then probably before we get the vaccine ready. But sure if it's at 0.95 then we will have to wait for the vaccine.
> To address "If we adopt a stance that makes R0 < 1, there is no other stochastically possible outcome.": This is untrue if you're time-bounding this to "before we make a generally-available vaccine".
Depends on what we get the value to. If we get it to 0.5 or below, as it appears China has done, then probably before we get the vaccine ready. But sure if it's at 0.95 then we will have to wait for the vaccine.
I think everyone would agree with you. The question is how long that realistically takes, in a minimally-damaging way.
I don't think there's a world in which there's a better option than "waiting for the vaccine with various forms of mitigation". Boy would I love to be proven wrong.
I don't think there's a world in which there's a better option than "waiting for the vaccine with various forms of mitigation". Boy would I love to be proven wrong.
At this point it's hard to imagine doing much more damage to the economy than what is already being done, at least not in any way that would be useful for stopping the spread of the virus. We should take any further actions that seem likely to curtail the spread (massive testing, massively expanded surveillance and data publishing about the virus, centralized quarantines if needed to engender compliance). And then I guess we can see. If China has not managed to stamp it out in the next month or so, that will be a pretty bad sign for our ability to do.
> Boy would I love to be proven wrong.
I would love you to be proven wrong. And I'd accept being proven wrong, with deep regret. But it's definitely possible to get within striking distance. I hope we can see China jump the gap from few to no new cases soon. That would give me hope for the rest of us.
> Boy would I love to be proven wrong.
I would love you to be proven wrong. And I'd accept being proven wrong, with deep regret. But it's definitely possible to get within striking distance. I hope we can see China jump the gap from few to no new cases soon. That would give me hope for the rest of us.
Snuffing the virus out is not an option at this point. Perhaps they could have done that in Wuhan in December, but it is not an choice we can make for the United States in March. And no, we aren't waiting for a vaccine. We will build herd immunity as people contract the virus, develop antibodies and recover from it. The goal now is to moderate the rate at which people acquire the disease so that the critical cases do not overflow health care capacity.
Snuffing out the virus absolutely is an option. If we adopt a stance that makes R0 < 1, there is no other stochastically possible outcome. Whether we will is another question.
> We will build herd immunity as people contract the virus, develop antibodies and recover from it.
This is a pipe dream, at least outside the context where we are going to accept megadeaths or years of social distancing. The hospital capacity of the US is such that, if we were to run them all at 100% and somehow hold the virus exactly to the level that maximally utilizes ICUs, it would still take the better part of a decade before we got to the point of having herd immunity.
> We will build herd immunity as people contract the virus, develop antibodies and recover from it.
This is a pipe dream, at least outside the context where we are going to accept megadeaths or years of social distancing. The hospital capacity of the US is such that, if we were to run them all at 100% and somehow hold the virus exactly to the level that maximally utilizes ICUs, it would still take the better part of a decade before we got to the point of having herd immunity.
How is it possible to make R0 < 1 for rural Africa? Or for the remote areas of the world? For something more infectious than the flu?
It's impossible, unfortunately. There are billions on the planet without even access to the internet. Many don't have running water or consistent food. How can we get R0 less than 1 there?
It's impossible, unfortunately. There are billions on the planet without even access to the internet. Many don't have running water or consistent food. How can we get R0 less than 1 there?
> How is it possible to make R0 < 1 for rural Africa? Or for the remote areas of the world? For something more infectious than the flu?
That's not relevant to the United States if we eradicate domestically and close borders. That said, Africa managed to contain the Ebola epidemic. Let's not underestimate their resolve.
That's not relevant to the United States if we eradicate domestically and close borders. That said, Africa managed to contain the Ebola epidemic. Let's not underestimate their resolve.
That would do more harm than the virus. The virus is not everywhere[1] and no lockdown is perfect, so the virus will spread hit different places at different times. It is better to lock down regions or states as needed
Also, unnecessary lockdowns can ruin the credibility of the heath authorities. IF we lock down counties with no cases, not only are we needlessly disrupting lives, people wont listen to the order when it IS necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_t...
Also, unnecessary lockdowns can ruin the credibility of the heath authorities. IF we lock down counties with no cases, not only are we needlessly disrupting lives, people wont listen to the order when it IS necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_t...
.svg){kind=link}
[deleted]
At this point wouldn't it be better to just implement a Chinese-style martial law lock-down? The damage to the economy is already here. Might as well shut things down for 3-4 weeks and slowly open up sections of a city. That seems better to me then dragging this thing out for 3 months or longer. I feel like these "stages" of lock-down are doing nothing but delaying the inevitable which will cause more damage in the long run.
I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US. I for one would not be ok with that. Once the government takes that authority once, who knows what they end up doing with it when they see they can get away with it.
Yeah... America is a big and weird place, and has large swatches of people who deeply distrust the police or the government for some reason or another. And literally everyone is already on edge.
My neighborhood might comply, but there's a real risk that police state tactics would lead to massive social unrest, rioting, and total economic collapse in pockets across the country. If anyone thinks this is impossible, may I refer you to the 1960's.
On the other hand, what the authoritarian minded commenters seem to miss is how powerful social pressure and distributed decision making can actually be.
My neighborhood might comply, but there's a real risk that police state tactics would lead to massive social unrest, rioting, and total economic collapse in pockets across the country. If anyone thinks this is impossible, may I refer you to the 1960's.
On the other hand, what the authoritarian minded commenters seem to miss is how powerful social pressure and distributed decision making can actually be.
> I don't think authoritarian tactics like that, while effective, would fly in the US.
Much of this hinges on how it's done. First, you can't take away rights unless there's a compelling governmental interest. This interest clearly exists; however, it still doesn't fly UNLESS you restrict rights by the least restrictive means possible.
By trying voluntary restrictions first, they can demonstrate that these lesser restrictions were ineffective, and then successfully defend the more aggressive mandates in court if necessary, later.
Much of this hinges on how it's done. First, you can't take away rights unless there's a compelling governmental interest. This interest clearly exists; however, it still doesn't fly UNLESS you restrict rights by the least restrictive means possible.
By trying voluntary restrictions first, they can demonstrate that these lesser restrictions were ineffective, and then successfully defend the more aggressive mandates in court if necessary, later.
Postscript: For more on this, see https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/10/21171464/co...
I don't disagree, but we seem to be approaching that end in little stages anyway all the while extending the financial losses felt by households across the nation. I'm saying if we're heading to that outcome, might as well make it quick short and stern.
Something like that should come with a massive political cost - maybe after the crisis, all sitting politicians become ineligible for re-election on the basis that they shouldn’t have let it come to that point in the first place.
I agree, as alarming as it sounds I think we'd need something much higher than a 2% fatality rate to justify completely giving up our civil liberties.
If anything it should be the elderly and vulnerable that are forced to isolate while the rest of society slows down for awhile, but even that I think is too egregious at this point.
If anything it should be the elderly and vulnerable that are forced to isolate while the rest of society slows down for awhile, but even that I think is too egregious at this point.
You're not gonna get 2% fatality rate without serious quarantine measures. That rate assumes you can get all the serious cases to the ICU and into a ventilator. If you let it grow exponentially, we need to start imagining what is the fatality rate basically without any hospital care. Scaling hospitals will be absolutely impossible once the cases start heading into six and seven figures.
Lincoln used marshal law during the civil war and even that was deemed unconstitutional in some areas. As long as there are functioning civil courts, marshal law is not considered justified, as I understand it.
It's "martial" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/martial#English) rather than "marshal" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/marshal#English). The two are homophones, but the first means 'military' and the second is a particular rank or role within an army or government.
Imperial College doesn’t think that’s going to do enough good
who cares abt you though
Exactly. All this talk of "flattening the curve" is counterproductive if the curve remains flattened right at capacity for an extended period of time, which is what these measures will cause, rather than spiking for a short period.
No one in this country is mentally ready for hospitals to just not be available for an unknown amount of time. IMHO this would cause complete societal breakdown. It's one of our basic needs like food and shelter.
One wonders why they don't call it elongating the curve.
Yeah, because a quick spike wouldn't have any outside effects at all.
You sound as if you're ok with millions of people dying miserably.
You think a long period of decreased economy is bad, the spike might cause outright panics and armed unrest.
We can print dollars, we can't resurrect the dead.
You sound as if you're ok with millions of people dying miserably.
You think a long period of decreased economy is bad, the spike might cause outright panics and armed unrest.
We can print dollars, we can't resurrect the dead.
Can you print economic output though? Printing dollars only works when there are things to buy and sell. More money and less things to use it on only makes the money less useful (inflation). Usually the economy can absorb that extra supply pretty well to the point of being insignificant, but that doesn't work when you just stop said economy.
Also, how do you think we will be able to support and help those more vulnerable if we don't have any economic output? Will printing money make supplies appear from nowhere?
Also, how do you think we will be able to support and help those more vulnerable if we don't have any economic output? Will printing money make supplies appear from nowhere?
Why not make the death fast? The argument is for euthanasia not a poor life to slowly die.
It's not "death fast", it's: 1) way more deaths and a complete congestion of medical services vs. 2) less deaths, manageable medical service and a period of painful stagnation for the economy.
If you get critically sick or injured (not COVID19 related) and hospitals are overflowing, you will suffer when no one can see you because of COVID19 cases.
If you get critically sick or injured (not COVID19 related) and hospitals are overflowing, you will suffer when no one can see you because of COVID19 cases.
And the problem is that during an extended period of curve reduction there will still be people pushed out of medical care due to surging cases (but not spiking!). The total area between the number of patients and hospital capacity curves may be similar in both cases.
This also assumes an invariant capacity. Extended period gives us the opportunity increase that capacity through means including getting folks trained as hospital techs (4 week training) and having local teams sew & build our filters and masks.
Essentially given a will, we could transition part of our economy to a war footing (against the virus). Do we have the will?
Or do we capitulate and decimate the population?
Essentially given a will, we could transition part of our economy to a war footing (against the virus). Do we have the will?
Or do we capitulate and decimate the population?
Why not move to a system where those most likely to live with minimal resource consumption move up? You’d probably need a multiplier for those that are useful to society but need more resources
That sounds an awful lot like a romanticized perfect democracy, which cannot exist outside of fiction, or a social credit system. There's an ongoing study on the effectiveness of a social credit system. It's happening in China. Go test it out and report back.
The only logical reason he might be doing it slowly is to limit the number of people trying to leave the city or state. This way people will trickle out instead of having a rush, like Italy, that caused it to spread
>> The damage to the economy is already here
You think it can't get worse?
You think it can't get worse?
On the contrary, I know it will get worse regardless of what we do. The question is does it get more worse with a long drawn out lock-down or a short and stern one?
EDIT: a word
EDIT: a word
I'll support lockdowns when the governments (local, state, federal) provide an economic relief package to go with it for all the businesses that will suffer absurd losses.
It's real easy to shut down businesses and livelihoods when politicians are not responsible for the economic fallout.
It's real easy to shut down businesses and livelihoods when politicians are not responsible for the economic fallout.
Governments would love that. Also, don't think things regarding their newfound powers would go "back to normal" either after.
What "newfound" powers? Did they pass any new laws for these powers? Seems like they always had them, so your scenario doesn't make sense.
In the late 19th century New York City used to send people with serious infectious diseases to a Sanitarium. Unless they could afford to be under a doctor/hospitals care. Most didn't come back.
Is there a non-paywalled link?
This submission and this one should merge:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22638396
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22638396
Done. Thanks!
Why are the subways still open? Seems like low hanging fruit to close those.
My guess would be because it's how a lot of essential workers get to work.
It might be better for the state to close the subway and pay for Lyft for all essential workers. Creates jobs for the drivers, gets essential workers where they need to be, closes the major infection channel. The drivers would be required to wear surgical masks and wash the back seat of the car before each passenger.
The subway at low usage is probably less likely to get you infected than a Lyft. You can touch basically nothing and stay 4-6 feet away from other people.
>The drivers would be required to wear surgical masks
There's already a shortage of masks for hospitals.
>wash the back seat of the car before each passenger.
You think they'd actually do that rather than getting more fares? Also, don't forget to clean every control in the back, the door handles, the inside door handles, seat belts and probably the air filter.
>The drivers would be required to wear surgical masks
There's already a shortage of masks for hospitals.
>wash the back seat of the car before each passenger.
You think they'd actually do that rather than getting more fares? Also, don't forget to clean every control in the back, the door handles, the inside door handles, seat belts and probably the air filter.
Because without subways many of those essential services (including health care) stop functioning as workers can't get to their jobs. Then everything goes to hell as actual mass panic breaks out.
Seems to be little appreciation on the internet for the fact that even in this situation, a big chunk of the population still has to go to work otherwise everything will collapse.
Thank you for saying this, it's been bothering me for days. Sure all of us computer people can lock ourselves in our houses for long periods of time. Some of us, like me, have already been doing that for years, but there are so many jobs that really are essential to keeping society functional, not just healthcare workers. For example, what about people in the building trades. Plumbing, HVAC, electrical, etc. If my furnace goes out, it needs to be fixed. Still getting pretty darn cold here at night. I could pretend like I'm camping, but that isn't going to work very well for my 8 month old.
Freight and truck are the big ones. Millions of truckers and trucks need to roll to move things. We need truck stops and gas stations to stay open to keep these moving. We need distribution centers to stay open to load and unload trucks. We need the factories that make toilet paper and baby formula and canned soup and N95 masks to stay open and fully functioning. We need the farms to stay open and the fertilizer and seed operations to stay open to provide to the farmers that are growing the crops. The pig farms and the cattle farms need to stay open and they need to be supplied to provide for meat in 6 months. And all the follow on industries that support these things.
You can't just stop all this.
You can't just stop all this.
Another reason for everyone to stay home. Reduce risk of infecting people who NEED to go out.
You mean not everyone can just expense a few monitors and an Aeron and cozy up?
Oaklander here. I watched my normal AC Transit commuter bus go by around five yesterday while I took a walk. It was empty, but I assume it’s for the same purpose, transport for essential workers.
On an interesting corollary, knowing what dangerously little I know about the MTA and its unions, are drivers griping about disease exposure? The NY subway is fairly labour-intensive as mass transit systems go...
I think the workers are going to be fine. The drivers and conductors have compartments. Station attendants have booths. The subway unions had to deal with the near-constant crime of the 70s and 80s, and didn't really want their workers out interacting with the general public. That turns out to be helpful in this case.
23 MTA employees with confirmed cases. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/23-mta-employees-sick-with...
Quote from NYTimes:
> For days, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City has pushed for a “shelter in place” order and the governor has repeatedly dismissed the idea, saying he would not quarantine New Yorkers in their homes.
He also spoke on a popular podcast earlier this week about DEFINITELY NOT taking this kind of action
> For days, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City has pushed for a “shelter in place” order and the governor has repeatedly dismissed the idea, saying he would not quarantine New Yorkers in their homes.
He also spoke on a popular podcast earlier this week about DEFINITELY NOT taking this kind of action
The side effects of exponential growth. It changes minds quickly.
I think the growth is a result of a focused effort to ramp up testing. Meanwhile if we are to have any confidence in the numbers (we probably shouldn't), according to the John's Hopkins counts, New York state currently has a surprisingly low CFR.
38 deaths / 5715 cases = 0.7% CFR
38 deaths / 5715 cases = 0.7% CFR
It's both. Ramping up testing which is giving a view into the impact of the previously underestimated exponential growth.
The low CFR rate is simply time. It takes roughly 3 weeks from infection to death. Meaning deaths should be compared with count of infections 2-3 weeks ago to calculate CFR.
Separately, there likely were a number more than died from it previously that didn't get testing because testing was so hard to come by (and the scope of the spread was not yet understood).
If NYC hospitals get overwhelmed like they are possibly on pace to, don't be shocked if you see CFR rise up to 4-5%. Especially as growth in new cases no longer out strip existing (which suppresses naively calculated CFR).
The low CFR rate is simply time. It takes roughly 3 weeks from infection to death. Meaning deaths should be compared with count of infections 2-3 weeks ago to calculate CFR.
Separately, there likely were a number more than died from it previously that didn't get testing because testing was so hard to come by (and the scope of the spread was not yet understood).
If NYC hospitals get overwhelmed like they are possibly on pace to, don't be shocked if you see CFR rise up to 4-5%. Especially as growth in new cases no longer out strip existing (which suppresses naively calculated CFR).
Given the exponential growth curves, wouldn't it be more appropriate to compare the number of deaths right now to the number of cases a few days ago? On March 16 (4 days ago) there were 950 identified cases in New York state, yielding a 4% CFR.
https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/03/how-fast-is-cor...
https://www.syracuse.com/coronavirus/2020/03/how-fast-is-cor...
Good point. As someone else said, deaths might not have caught up yet. But if we keep it together, I think we can hope to land at numbers similar to South Korea. They are well into deceleration phase, and are currently sitting at about 1%. Same for Switzerland.
No, because in other countries the fatalities and new cases have grown in tandem, not on a delay.
This is more indicative that the epidemiological models were somewhat accurate and the true CFR when you catch the mild cases is much closer to 1% than 3.5%.
This is more indicative that the epidemiological models were somewhat accurate and the true CFR when you catch the mild cases is much closer to 1% than 3.5%.
Most of those cases happened recently enough for the people not to have died from them yet.
[deleted]
Actually, we have always been at war with Eurasia. Trump knew it was going to be a pandemic all along!
It's got to be killing him to even appear to be following de Blasio's advice. Those two probably hate each other more than they hate the virus.
I think it would be hilarious if the first reporter to ask a question asks, "Sir, what was that percentage of workforce reduction again?" and writes the number down on a pad meticulously. Then the next, "Are you sure it's not 101 or 98 or something like that?" "Sure I'm sure! And I mean everyone!" And the reporters keep asking for the percentage again, while groping for writing pads as if they are terrified they will not remember or transcribe it correctly.