2 ms·

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-

by 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.

by jupp0r 7y ago

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.