7 ms·

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 a

by 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.
  - clairity 7y ago
    > “ What’s not sound science about separating people to slow down the spread? It’s the only real option...” no, that’s the nuclear option, not a surgical strike, much less the only option, and based on an insufficiently precise perception of the problem. the mechanism of spread can be crudely described as spitting into each others’ mouths, not standing nearby, touching, or breathing in the same room. with the problem sufficiently, if crudely, framed, it should be easier to imagine other ways of preventing spread besides locking everyone in their abodes. physical distancing by itself, for instance, is probably sufficient for most folks. for “essential” workers, you might add a mask.
    - asdff 7y ago
      no one is locked in their abodes.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      In the US they tried the just stay apart message before the stay at home orders and it wasn't working, people still crowded onto beaches in Florida over spring break and into concerts and restaurants all over the country. Ideally yes you'd just say stay apart from people and hand out masks which were getting sold out in a lot of places. Without ordering places closed there's too much incentive for businesses to fudge and force their employees to come to work. Don't forget there were runs and shortages of masks so service industry employees wouldn't have complete reliable access to simple masks. > the mechanism of spread can be crudely described as spitting into each others’ mouths Somewhat true but coughing etc makes loads of the tiny particles that can carry the virus and they can linger and spread. There's a lot that could have been done better but it requires a level of coordination and action the US isn't super great at, both in general and right now in particular..
      - clairity 7y ago
        > "There's a lot that could have been done better but it requires a level of coordination and action the US isn't super great at, both in general and right now in particular." the US, by construction, is all-in on decentralized solutions, and one of its strengths is resisting unwarranted coordinated and centralized action, which is simply an amassment of power, because that's inevitably destabilizing (usually over long time periods, which humans have a hard time properly and understandably rationalizing about). what's generally warranted, at a national level? defense and international relations. centralizing power is so threatening to the existence of the state itself, we limit it to other mortal threats to the state (international relations are centralized so other nations, say, russians, don't pick apart the states). we are obligated by our forebearers to apply our ingenuity and our massive resources to finding a solution given the few constraints placed on us by the constitution. we do that by applying our brains, teasing apart the problem, trying solutions, and generally being good people. we don't go running to the apron strings of the nanny state.
- mikeg8 7y ago
  Sometimes the scientific process isn’t an option and intuition is required. Look at the results and tell me you would have preferred they waited in the name of science. SF could have been much closer to the situation in NYC...
  - nradov 7y ago
    Go back and read my comment again. I didn't propose waiting on the name of science. Acting on intuition is fine, just don't call it scientific.
    - mikeg8 7y ago
      Maybe we’re splitting hairs. I agree that it wasn’t “sound science”, but one could argue it was evidence based - the evidence being reports/video coming out of China (I believe there was an article in The Atlantic stating this is what made London Breed issue the first shutdown in the nation). Your use of “faith” based implies to me there was zero evidence taken into account which seems unfair. Again, maybe we’re splitting hairs and trying to agree on the same thing.
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.

by aabhay 7y ago

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.
- clairity 7y ago
  > “ What’s not sound science about separating people to slow down the spread? It’s the only real option...” no, that’s the nuclear option, not a surgical strike, much less the only option, and based on an insufficiently precise perception of the problem. the mechanism of spread can be crudely described as spitting into each others’ mouths, not standing nearby, touching, or breathing in the same room. with the problem sufficiently, if crudely, framed, it should be easier to imagine other ways of preventing spread besides locking everyone in their abodes. physical distancing by itself, for instance, is probably sufficient for most folks. for “essential” workers, you might add a mask.
  - asdff 7y ago
    no one is locked in their abodes.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    In the US they tried the just stay apart message before the stay at home orders and it wasn't working, people still crowded onto beaches in Florida over spring break and into concerts and restaurants all over the country. Ideally yes you'd just say stay apart from people and hand out masks which were getting sold out in a lot of places. Without ordering places closed there's too much incentive for businesses to fudge and force their employees to come to work. Don't forget there were runs and shortages of masks so service industry employees wouldn't have complete reliable access to simple masks. > the mechanism of spread can be crudely described as spitting into each others’ mouths Somewhat true but coughing etc makes loads of the tiny particles that can carry the virus and they can linger and spread. There's a lot that could have been done better but it requires a level of coordination and action the US isn't super great at, both in general and right now in particular..
    - clairity 7y ago
      > "There's a lot that could have been done better but it requires a level of coordination and action the US isn't super great at, both in general and right now in particular." the US, by construction, is all-in on decentralized solutions, and one of its strengths is resisting unwarranted coordinated and centralized action, which is simply an amassment of power, because that's inevitably destabilizing (usually over long time periods, which humans have a hard time properly and understandably rationalizing about). what's generally warranted, at a national level? defense and international relations. centralizing power is so threatening to the existence of the state itself, we limit it to other mortal threats to the state (international relations are centralized so other nations, say, russians, don't pick apart the states). we are obligated by our forebearers to apply our ingenuity and our massive resources to finding a solution given the few constraints placed on us by the constitution. we do that by applying our brains, teasing apart the problem, trying solutions, and generally being good people. we don't go running to the apron strings of the nanny state.
mikeg8 7y ago
Sometimes the scientific process isn’t an option and intuition is required. Look at the results and tell me you would have preferred they waited in the name of science. SF could have been much closer to the situation in NYC...
- nradov 7y ago
  Go back and read my comment again. I didn't propose waiting on the name of science. Acting on intuition is fine, just don't call it scientific.
  - mikeg8 7y ago
    Maybe we’re splitting hairs. I agree that it wasn’t “sound science”, but one could argue it was evidence based - the evidence being reports/video coming out of China (I believe there was an article in The Atlantic stating this is what made London Breed issue the first shutdown in the nation). Your use of “faith” based implies to me there was zero evidence taken into account which seems unfair. Again, maybe we’re splitting hairs and trying to agree on the same thing.

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.