10 ms·
San Francisco has only had 18 COVID-19 deaths in the last 30 days, and only 2 in the last week. [0] That seems amazingly low to me. I'm leaning towards thinkin
by Uhhrrr 6y ago
San Francisco has only had 18 COVID-19 deaths in the last 30 days, and only 2 in the last week. [0] That seems amazingly low to me.
I'm leaning towards thinking non-essential businesses should be opened up there, provided they function under the same restrictions as grocery stores etc.
[0] https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_covid_19_data/csse_covid_19_time_series/time_series_covid19_deaths_US.csv https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/blob/master/csse_...
- wpietri 6y agoYou could argue it the other way from the same data. Given that public health officials jumped on it early and got us such a low death rate, maybe we should keep trusting their judgment and let them decide when it's safe to reopen.
- kvetching 6y agoThat's insane. If they're hesitant to open up now, they will never feel comfortable opening up.
- wpietri 6y agoOr perhaps they know more about the topic than we random HN readers and have a plan that they're following.
- adingus 6y agoIf that is the case then they could communicate that plan a little better. At the end of the day it's their fault if people don't understand why they are taking the actions they are.
- anigbrowl 6y agoI take you're listening to the daily state briefings and similar county press conferences. I have not been having a problem understanding them.
- nostromo 6y agoThey are understandable but vague. They should describe in detail when things will reopen and what metrics they’ll use to make that decision.
- wpietri 6y agoIt's an evolving situation. If they say precise but later-incorrect things, people will get mad. And a lot of the work they're doing is consensus-building, which is always mushy. Vague is fine with me right now if that's all they have.
- standardUser 6y agoProper communication would be written, concise, detailed and clear. These endless press conferences are none of those things.
- kansface 6y agoOr perhaps they have radically different values and think one preventable death is one too many or perhaps they know a lot less about economics than random HN or perhaps they just don’t want to be blamed when more people die (even if it’s the right choice). Opening up society is a fundamentally political decision that I’m not personally willing to cede to unelected scientists.
- chasd00 6y agodon't addicts die all day everyday in the streets of SanFran? I think the authorities are so timid because they know it can happen to them and they're terrified.
- wpietri 6y agoYou didn't cede it to unelected scientists. You ceded it to elected executive-branch officials, who then pick staff to work for them. If you don't like that, you can try to recall the mayor and/or the governor.
- tbrock 6y agoI doubt it, they don’t teach you much actual science while you are working on a poli-sci major.
- wpietri 6y agoGood thing that's not who staffs and runs public health departments.
- bermanoid 6y agoIf you can point to something about the situation that has changed since the shelter-in-place was initiated that would indicate it's not needed anymore, I'd love to hear it. The virus hasn't gone away, we don't have any medications to make it reliably recoverable, we don't have test + trace ability in place (anecdotally, even if you're symptomatic but not in seriously bad condition it's still very difficult to get tested, let alone if you're not), we don't have herd immunity, there is no approved vaccine, etc. If the Bay Area opens up completely, exponential spread kicks in instantly with a high replication factor and in a month it'll look just like New York. We are not through this in any way, shape, or form, even if it sucks. We've bought some time. If we did reopen now we'd probably be better off than if we hadn't shut down at all, but it'll still rip through the whole population, and unless we're ready to accept that, we've got to keep measures in place.
- Uhhrrr 6y agoI agree that opening up in a dumb way would let the virus rip through the population. But we now know that surface transmission isn't as big a deal, and that spreading is much less likely when there isn't sustained contact. We also now have everyone wearing masks. Given those things, I would think that any shop where you ordinarily go in for five or ten minutes and don't touch a bunch of things (shoe repair, sporting goods, NOT bookstores) would be very low risk.
- pasttense01 6y agoBut the employees of those shops are in sustained contact with each other.
- Uhhrrr 6y agoSure, if the shop is too cramped, don't open. Stick in some proviso in the order that nonessential businesses can only have 1 employee for every x square feet.
- tayo42 6y agoI think that's because nothings different then when it all started. If we open everything up we'll just see new cases again
- rootusrootus 6y agoThis may be true for years. We need to be realistic, and remember that the goal all along has been to flatten the curve, not eliminate all infections.
- tayo42 6y agoFlatten the curve is to make sure there is enough available resources to help people who are sick. Nothings changed though, so opening things up means we'll likely be overwhelmed. Why take the risk to end up like any of regions that were hit hard? So yes it'll be true for years, we need to learn to live with this virus, we haven't done that yet
- standardUser 6y ago"...opening things up means we'll likely be overwhelmed" Only if you myopically believe there is only one way to "open up". But no one would believe that since it only takes ten minutes to read about the dozens of different ways European economies have already eased their lockdowns in recent weeks. This is not and has never been an on/off proposition.
- tbrock 6y agoSo what is the plan for re-opening then? If we continue to shelter in place we just push the curve out instead of flattening it. We need to start reintroducing people to society at a measured pace to actually flatten it. Don’t misunderstand me, pushing the curve out has tremendous value in that we can better prepare but it also has a tremendous cost. How many business and livelihoods will be ruined because we couldn’t reopen until a vaccine was available? It seems crazy to sacrifice most of what makes this city great while the “smartest political minds” do what’s best for their career by transforming it into a partisan issue.
- walterbell 6y agoUnless the data shows that states/countries which did not lock down have almost the same cumulative health outcomes, minus the voluntary economic destruction.
- wpietri 6y agoYes, more data would obviously change the discussion. And that more data could show all sorts of things.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoFive out of six Russian roulette players have a positive outcome.
- randyrand 6y agoDeaths per month is not what matters. Its death per infection that matters. And theres no evidence that SF is doing any better in that regard.
- MAGZine 6y agoSo the only thing that matters in a city is something that is out of the city's control (i.e. mortality rate of a virus). That's a bit silly. There's no sense in measuring against something that you can't meaningfully affect. Your comment is also not entirely correct: SF's death rate is lower than places where hospitals are full or ventilator supplies are inadequate.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoThat is a terrible metric. We have little reason to believe deaths per infection can be significantly improved with therapeutic intervention.
- sjg007 6y agoThat’s great. Here in Minnesota we average 20 a day and the number of cases keeps increasing despite a 1 month lockdown. People want to open up and get we didn’t even pass the first test!
- asdff 6y agoMeanwhile LA county seems to be ramping up. This is no time to balk in major metros.
- Uhhrrr 6y agoYes, LA county has the majority of cases in California. They're down from a peak of 1482 new cases a week ago, but still have hundreds of new cases a day. I'm just talking about SF, where things seem to be under control.