6 ms·

I hate how the idea of reopening has split down political party lines. This is definitely not the time for partisanship. Now that Republicans have come out as p

I hate how the idea of reopening has split down political party lines. This is definitely not the time for partisanship. Now that Republicans have come out as pro-reopening, San Francisco will be the last city to reopen in the country. 0 COVID-19 infections will be too many.

pgsbathhouse2 7y ago
Are you okay?
- fasteddie31003 7y ago
  What is that supposed to mean?
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
aabhay 7y ago
The new order includes several approved low risk activities and transparent indicators that will be used to gauge safety to further reopen. Is there something about this you don’t feel is backed by science?
- avalys 7y ago
  Do you have a link to this new order?
- nradov 7y ago
  The original order was never based on any sound science to begin with. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad policy. But it was a faith based policy, not evidence based.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    What’s not sound science about separating people to slow down the spread? It’s the only real option for anything like a quarantine with such a long incubation time (and as recently discovered asymptomatic infections) and the absolute lack of tests we had at the beginning of this outbreak... It’s simple math that reducing the number of people in contact with each other would reduce the number of people that got infected.
    - tastygreenapple 7y ago
      There's no way you can say that all the open/close decisions were analytically/objectively supported, and you can tell by the selective (rather than universal) 'social distancing' enforcement that the authorities know it doesn't really matter. I saw so many people congregating on the golden gate bridge the other day, yet, the authorities shut down San Mateo county parks for violations of social distance that were much less flagrant than the ones at Golden Gate. Consider how quickly they moved to shut down gun retailers, they didn't show that animus to abortion clinics. Or in New York, some mosques remain open for prayer but the mayor has specifically threatened to permanently close Synagogues and Churches that didn't immediately submit to the mayor's edict.
    - nradov 7y ago
      You have stated a plausible hypothesis. That's one step in the scientific method. Now do the rest of the steps. The actual math isn't so simple. We all understand that in a crisis sometimes leaders have to take decisive action based on incomplete data. That's fine. Just don't dress it up with some fake veneer of "science".
      - sixstringtheory 7y ago
        I think the rest of the steps were done long ago. That’s when we discovered about infectious disease. Taking steps to slow spread is based on that science, AFAICT.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        No, we know limiting person to person contact will limit spread of diseases. The stay at home orders are a blunt instrument but they're implementing a very simple, well understood mechanism for reducing the spread of diseases.
- theferalrobot 7y ago
  At the end of the day it is going to be a judgement call by someone - hopefully informed by scientific fact - but ‘science’ doesn’t say when to reopen, just provides the data and context help make a decision.
aantix 7y ago
You can't have the expectation of paying debts and simultaneously take away people's means for repaying it. Responsibility without control is cruel. Growing up, my parents maybe would have had an extra $100 at the end of the month. My dad would have probably been out of work - given that, each month they were out of work would have put them in a year's worth of debt. A financial death.
wglb 7y ago
I hear what you are saying, but I am glad I am not the one making the decisions about this. It is clear that sheltering does reduce the speed of infection growth, but it is also very clear that sheltering puts enormous stress on individuals, families and companies. I have empathy for those who have to work at home while simultaneously home schooling their children, or families that are in economically over-stressed situations where they don't have an option to work at home, or for communities that don't have adequate running water and other resources.
yalogin 7y ago
Its disappointing that you bemoan the partisan politics in a time like this and immediately assume/mock that San Francisco will take a partisan decision when so far they have done a good job and stuck to science.
- fasteddie31003 7y ago
  Politics will be involved in any decision made by elected officials.
archagon 7y ago
I hate how the idea of reopening has split down political party lines. This is definitely not the time for partisanship. Now that Democrats have come out in support of gradually tapering the quarantine, Republican mayors will be chomping at the bit to reopen their cities. 60,000 COVID-19 deaths will be too few.
- twomoretime 7y ago
  Not all locales and politicians are equally activist.
  - archagon 7y ago
    I have confidence in the leadership of California. They have shown intelligence and restraint in the midst of this crisis, saving perhaps thousands of lives in the process. The federal government? Pure drivel, 24/7. The only policy they have is wishful thinking with a side of word salad.
fzeroracer 7y ago
Just over a month ago, you were talking about Japan's reduced rates of COVID-19 cases thanks to their mask-wearing culture compared to western societies. Would you like to revisit that topic before we talk about reopening anything? Or how about Hokkaido facing another wave of cases due to reopening too early? Because it seems to me it's only a matter of time for any country that's currently open to see a spike in cases regardless of their culture.
- fasteddie31003 7y ago
  I believe Japan is doing relatively well still. https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-coronavirus-cases-fall-sharply-without-compulsory-measures-11587993871 https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-coronavirus-cases-fall-s... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/
globular-toast 7y ago
It's so predictable. Intelligent people say "we must/must not do this because consequences will be bad", Republicans say "we'll let you do this regardless of consequences", idiots support Republicans because of short term conveniences.
- fasteddie31003 7y ago
  I think your logic around the word "intelligent" is overly simplistic. Would you say Sweden's logic behind their limited lockdown was not backed by "intellect"?
favorited 7y ago
Why is it that you're afraid of this being "split down political party lines," but OK with the fact that "Republicans have come out as pro-reopening?" If the science supports shelter-in-place for now, it's automatically bad that Democrats support that to avoid splitting from Republicans?
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  No, the science doesn't "support shelter-in-place", because science in itself doesn't support any particular policy. Instead, the science is simply predicting a certain number of deaths or burden on the healthcare system, and certain public-health officials are recommending policy to minimize number of deaths, because their sole priority is to save human lives. However, someone else could look at that same science predicting a certain number of deaths, and say that such a number of deaths is an acceptable sacrifice and a policy of reopening the economy can be pursued.
  - BaronSamedi 7y ago
    Good point. I've seen this mistaken notion of science a lot recently. Scientists can describe the world and make predications about how it might behave, they don't have anything to say (as scientists) about what one ought to do. Also, it appears that by "science" commenters here really mean epidemiologists or medical scientists, not economists, psychologists, political scientists, etc. Scientists from each of these fields have a limited perspective, a good leader tries to balance these perspectives when choosing a course of action. Of course, the medical view matter a lot now but its not the only view that matters.

pgsbathhouse2 7y ago

Are you okay?

fasteddie31003 7y ago
What is that supposed to mean?
dang 7y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines. Could you please not create accounts to do that with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

aabhay 7y ago

The new order includes several approved low risk activities and transparent indicators that will be used to gauge safety to further reopen. Is there something about this you don’t feel is backed by science?

avalys 7y ago
Do you have a link to this new order?
nradov 7y ago
The original order was never based on any sound science to begin with. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad policy. But it was a faith based policy, not evidence based.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  What’s not sound science about separating people to slow down the spread? It’s the only real option for anything like a quarantine with such a long incubation time (and as recently discovered asymptomatic infections) and the absolute lack of tests we had at the beginning of this outbreak... It’s simple math that reducing the number of people in contact with each other would reduce the number of people that got infected.
  - tastygreenapple 7y ago
    There's no way you can say that all the open/close decisions were analytically/objectively supported, and you can tell by the selective (rather than universal) 'social distancing' enforcement that the authorities know it doesn't really matter. I saw so many people congregating on the golden gate bridge the other day, yet, the authorities shut down San Mateo county parks for violations of social distance that were much less flagrant than the ones at Golden Gate. Consider how quickly they moved to shut down gun retailers, they didn't show that animus to abortion clinics. Or in New York, some mosques remain open for prayer but the mayor has specifically threatened to permanently close Synagogues and Churches that didn't immediately submit to the mayor's edict.
  - nradov 7y ago
    You have stated a plausible hypothesis. That's one step in the scientific method. Now do the rest of the steps. The actual math isn't so simple. We all understand that in a crisis sometimes leaders have to take decisive action based on incomplete data. That's fine. Just don't dress it up with some fake veneer of "science".
    - sixstringtheory 7y ago
      I think the rest of the steps were done long ago. That’s when we discovered about infectious disease. Taking steps to slow spread is based on that science, AFAICT.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      No, we know limiting person to person contact will limit spread of diseases. The stay at home orders are a blunt instrument but they're implementing a very simple, well understood mechanism for reducing the spread of diseases.
theferalrobot 7y ago
At the end of the day it is going to be a judgement call by someone - hopefully informed by scientific fact - but ‘science’ doesn’t say when to reopen, just provides the data and context help make a decision.

aantix 7y ago

You can't have the expectation of paying debts and simultaneously take away people's means for repaying it. Responsibility without control is cruel. Growing up, my parents maybe would have had an extra $100 at the end of the month. My dad would have probably been out of work - given that, each month they were out of work would have put them in a year's worth of debt. A financial death.

wglb 7y ago

I hear what you are saying, but I am glad I am not the one making the decisions about this. It is clear that sheltering does reduce the speed of infection growth, but it is also very clear that sheltering puts enormous stress on individuals, families and companies. I have empathy for those who have to work at home while simultaneously home schooling their children, or families that are in economically over-stressed situations where they don't have an option to work at home, or for communities that don't have adequate running water and other resources.

yalogin 7y ago

Its disappointing that you bemoan the partisan politics in a time like this and immediately assume/mock that San Francisco will take a partisan decision when so far they have done a good job and stuck to science.

fasteddie31003 7y ago
Politics will be involved in any decision made by elected officials.

archagon 7y ago

I hate how the idea of reopening has split down political party lines. This is definitely not the time for partisanship. Now that Democrats have come out in support of gradually tapering the quarantine, Republican mayors will be chomping at the bit to reopen their cities. 60,000 COVID-19 deaths will be too few.

twomoretime 7y ago
Not all locales and politicians are equally activist.
- archagon 7y ago
  I have confidence in the leadership of California. They have shown intelligence and restraint in the midst of this crisis, saving perhaps thousands of lives in the process. The federal government? Pure drivel, 24/7. The only policy they have is wishful thinking with a side of word salad.

fzeroracer 7y ago

Just over a month ago, you were talking about Japan's reduced rates of COVID-19 cases thanks to their mask-wearing culture compared to western societies. Would you like to revisit that topic before we talk about reopening anything? Or how about Hokkaido facing another wave of cases due to reopening too early? Because it seems to me it's only a matter of time for any country that's currently open to see a spike in cases regardless of their culture.

fasteddie31003 7y ago
I believe Japan is doing relatively well still. https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-coronavirus-cases-fall-sharply-without-compulsory-measures-11587993871 https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-coronavirus-cases-fall-s... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/japan/

globular-toast 7y ago

It's so predictable. Intelligent people say "we must/must not do this because consequences will be bad", Republicans say "we'll let you do this regardless of consequences", idiots support Republicans because of short term conveniences.

fasteddie31003 7y ago
I think your logic around the word "intelligent" is overly simplistic. Would you say Sweden's logic behind their limited lockdown was not backed by "intellect"?

favorited 7y ago

Why is it that you're afraid of this being "split down political party lines," but OK with the fact that "Republicans have come out as pro-reopening?" If the science supports shelter-in-place for now, it's automatically bad that Democrats support that to avoid splitting from Republicans?

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
No, the science doesn't "support shelter-in-place", because science in itself doesn't support any particular policy. Instead, the science is simply predicting a certain number of deaths or burden on the healthcare system, and certain public-health officials are recommending policy to minimize number of deaths, because their sole priority is to save human lives. However, someone else could look at that same science predicting a certain number of deaths, and say that such a number of deaths is an acceptable sacrifice and a policy of reopening the economy can be pursued.
- BaronSamedi 7y ago
  Good point. I've seen this mistaken notion of science a lot recently. Scientists can describe the world and make predications about how it might behave, they don't have anything to say (as scientists) about what one ought to do. Also, it appears that by "science" commenters here really mean epidemiologists or medical scientists, not economists, psychologists, political scientists, etc. Scientists from each of these fields have a limited perspective, a good leader tries to balance these perspectives when choosing a course of action. Of course, the medical view matter a lot now but its not the only view that matters.