4 ms·
On 3/16 San Francisco and some other cities issued the shelter-in-place order, and CA had 472 patients. Two weeks later, on 3/30, CA had 6,932 patients. That'
by yongjik 7y ago
On 3/16 San Francisco and some other cities issued the shelter-in-place order, and CA had 472 patients. Two weeks later, on 3/30, CA had 6,932 patients. That's 21% average daily increase, with an existing shelter-in-place order.
With 21% daily increase, it takes 12 days to go from 10% to 100% hospital utilization. And change of policy usually takes a week or more to affect the curve. Which means, we are ~5 days away from an invisible deadline, after which hospitals will be overrun no matter what.
That's not nearly far enough for my liking.
- marcell 7y agoFirst, it's not clear or obvious that the 21% daily increase rate would increase indefinitely. Infection rate slows more people get infected, and new potential victims decrease. Second, all regions saw giant, double digit growth rates at first, and then lower growth rates. Sweden is taking a more laissez faire approach, and their growth rate has dropped from over +20% d/d to +1% d/d [1] There isn't data to support the idea that we'd have 100% utilization in the Bay Area without shelter in place. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_S...
- in_cahoots 7y agoShelter in place is irrelevant here, it had just been instituted and it takes roughly 10 days to go from symptoms to hospitalization.