6 ms·

Serious question: if restrictions aren’t lifted now then will they be? What will be meaningfully different June 1st rather than May 1st? Is it shelter-in-place

Serious question: if restrictions aren’t lifted now then will they be? What will be meaningfully different June 1st rather than May 1st? Is it shelter-in-place until we get more testing? Or the AppleGoogle contact tracing? Or is it shelter-in-place until a vaccine... in 18 months? What are the conditions required to start slowly relaxing the shutdown? Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. I haven’t left my home for two full months. I started preparing for the worst in early February. There are many options in between “full lockdown” and “fully open”. We won’t be in full lockdown for 18 months. So, what are the requirements to start slowly lifting.

jupp0r 7y ago
Here are the conditions for lifting the CA stay at home orders: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/California-Roadmap-to-Modify-the-Stay-at-Home-Order.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/California... It basically comes down to being able to contain disease spread by contact tracing and testing.
- mlyle 7y ago
  The recently stated goal is to decay to 1 infection per million residents so that robust contact tracing works. Back of the envelope math puts that between 6 and 18 months of continued progress of the health order to get it to this level. (60 or so in Santa Clara County ICU == ~6000 infections. ICU occupancy decaying by 40% per month; 0.6^15 months * 6000 = ~3 ) If you look at hospital admissions, instead, it's a bit less than a 40% decay per week. So we get something more like 5-6 months. I don't see either of these as plausible. And even if we have lowered Rt to this point of decay for most subpopulations, I'm better there's a few where it's higher and that will eventually shallow out the decline. Not to mention the risks from areas with lower controls. The IMHE model is very influential, but it has been forecasting an unrealistically quick decline in cases that has encouraged public health officials to seriously consider trying to get to this minimal level of cases.
  - icelancer 7y ago
    >> The IMHE model is very influential, but it has been forecasting an unrealistically quick decline in cases that has encouraged public health officials to seriously consider trying to get to this minimal level of cases. It also blew their 95% CIs over half of the measured data points, with social distancing built into the model (so no moving the goalposts here). It's a worthless model.
- icelancer 7y ago
  You'll note there are no metrics or numbers, just platitudes and ideas. That means it is up to Gov. Newsom and his interpretation of the facts and we are unable to hold him accountable. Which is generally how government officials like it.
roel_v 7y ago
Probably downvotes because the answer to your question is the same as to 90% of all uninformed questions online - "we don't know". There are so many unknowns, things go day by day or week by week at best. I too get annoyed at the 1000'd idiot asking 'but will I be able to go on holiday in August?'. Not saying you're an idiot, just trying to explain why others, like me, would be annoyed at your post and would want to see less posts like it.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  The problem is that is been a month now: not having an answer is flatly unacceptable governance.
  - roel_v 7y ago
    Why?
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      You think it is acceptable that our government either: A. Has no plan behind what they are doing or B. Has a plan, but is refusing to share? Because that's my reading their press release. Please enlighten me why you feel that the current state of affairs in disclosure and planning regarding the future of the lock-down represents leadership on the correct side of competent?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- icelancer 7y ago
  Then it would be best if Gov. Newsom and the other elected officials put hard data and target metrics out, not platitudes and "we must get better before we reopen" statements.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y ago
    They don't want to be beholden to an arbitrary goal they've made in the past - they want to be able to move the goalposts forward or backward and (hopefully) translate the latest advice from experts into actual policy. I agree with you though - some better expectations-setting would be nice, and probably encourage more people to comply.

jupp0r 7y ago

Here are the conditions for lifting the CA stay at home orders: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/California-Roadmap-to-Modify-the-Stay-at-Home-Order.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/California... It basically comes down to being able to contain disease spread by contact tracing and testing.

mlyle 7y ago
The recently stated goal is to decay to 1 infection per million residents so that robust contact tracing works. Back of the envelope math puts that between 6 and 18 months of continued progress of the health order to get it to this level. (60 or so in Santa Clara County ICU == ~6000 infections. ICU occupancy decaying by 40% per month; 0.6^15 months * 6000 = ~3 ) If you look at hospital admissions, instead, it's a bit less than a 40% decay per week. So we get something more like 5-6 months. I don't see either of these as plausible. And even if we have lowered Rt to this point of decay for most subpopulations, I'm better there's a few where it's higher and that will eventually shallow out the decline. Not to mention the risks from areas with lower controls. The IMHE model is very influential, but it has been forecasting an unrealistically quick decline in cases that has encouraged public health officials to seriously consider trying to get to this minimal level of cases.
- icelancer 7y ago
  >> The IMHE model is very influential, but it has been forecasting an unrealistically quick decline in cases that has encouraged public health officials to seriously consider trying to get to this minimal level of cases. It also blew their 95% CIs over half of the measured data points, with social distancing built into the model (so no moving the goalposts here). It's a worthless model.
icelancer 7y ago
You'll note there are no metrics or numbers, just platitudes and ideas. That means it is up to Gov. Newsom and his interpretation of the facts and we are unable to hold him accountable. Which is generally how government officials like it.

roel_v 7y ago

Probably downvotes because the answer to your question is the same as to 90% of all uninformed questions online - "we don't know". There are so many unknowns, things go day by day or week by week at best. I too get annoyed at the 1000'd idiot asking 'but will I be able to go on holiday in August?'. Not saying you're an idiot, just trying to explain why others, like me, would be annoyed at your post and would want to see less posts like it.

thereisnospork 7y ago
The problem is that is been a month now: not having an answer is flatly unacceptable governance.
- roel_v 7y ago
  Why?
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    You think it is acceptable that our government either: A. Has no plan behind what they are doing or B. Has a plan, but is refusing to share? Because that's my reading their press release. Please enlighten me why you feel that the current state of affairs in disclosure and planning regarding the future of the lock-down represents leadership on the correct side of competent?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
icelancer 7y ago
Then it would be best if Gov. Newsom and the other elected officials put hard data and target metrics out, not platitudes and "we must get better before we reopen" statements.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 7y ago
  They don't want to be beholden to an arbitrary goal they've made in the past - they want to be able to move the goalposts forward or backward and (hopefully) translate the latest advice from experts into actual policy. I agree with you though - some better expectations-setting would be nice, and probably encourage more people to comply.