4 ms·

They have established objective metrics to use in determining when to loosen restrictions, and there are also procedures in place for partial reopening of resta

They have established objective metrics to use in determining when to loosen restrictions, and there are also procedures in place for partial reopening of restaurants, recreation areas, etc. Your questions are answered in the article.

georgeburdell 6y ago
As somebody who has worked in a "data driven" environment, I look forward to health departments re-discovering Goodhart's Law [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- mbreese 6y ago
  In this case though, I think it’s okay to have the measure be the target. If people can self-regulate their behavior to fit a certain rate of infection, what’s wrong with that? (Not to mention the infection rate is a really lagging indicator)
  - panzagl 6y ago
    Well, the metric is really no reported deaths...
Ididntdothis 6y ago
The bar is extremely high. No deaths for 14 days? That seems almost impossible.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cactus2093 6y ago
I feel like this just needs a better branding. For one thing, across California the stay at home orders have barely been enforced anyway. People are hanging out in parks, even meeting up with friends in parks all the time. So it's been an open secret this whole time that it's more voluntary than an "order". Now with curbside pickup, and restaurants partially opening, it seems like taking another step towards more targeted interventions and away from the broadest stay at home orders. This all seems in line with what anyone would have expected. Anyone who thought that on June 1 when the stay-at-home orders officially end everyone would just jump back into normal life and it would magically be safe clearly hasn't been paying attention. The difference between California and states like Georgia that have "opened up" actually seems to be quite minimal. Some people are taking more risks (which is not really being stopped in either place), the majority are still being very cautious. That's bad news for people hoping that the small businesses that have been financially hurt would spring back immediately, but hopefully good news for where we are in containment of the virus. And, knock on wood, at least for now it seems to be enough to keep the disease spread from ramping back up. I still think it would have been nice to just go all the way with the lockdown from day 1 back in March, actually enforce the rules and keep more people inside, and squashed the curve faster so that by now we'd be a lot more open than we are. But instead we chose the route of making most people only moderately miserable instead for a long time, instead of even slightly more miserable but for a shorter time.

georgeburdell 6y ago

As somebody who has worked in a "data driven" environment, I look forward to health departments re-discovering Goodhart's Law [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

mbreese 6y ago
In this case though, I think it’s okay to have the measure be the target. If people can self-regulate their behavior to fit a certain rate of infection, what’s wrong with that? (Not to mention the infection rate is a really lagging indicator)
- panzagl 6y ago
  Well, the metric is really no reported deaths...

Ididntdothis 6y ago

The bar is extremely high. No deaths for 14 days? That seems almost impossible.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cactus2093 6y ago

I feel like this just needs a better branding. For one thing, across California the stay at home orders have barely been enforced anyway. People are hanging out in parks, even meeting up with friends in parks all the time. So it's been an open secret this whole time that it's more voluntary than an "order". Now with curbside pickup, and restaurants partially opening, it seems like taking another step towards more targeted interventions and away from the broadest stay at home orders. This all seems in line with what anyone would have expected. Anyone who thought that on June 1 when the stay-at-home orders officially end everyone would just jump back into normal life and it would magically be safe clearly hasn't been paying attention. The difference between California and states like Georgia that have "opened up" actually seems to be quite minimal. Some people are taking more risks (which is not really being stopped in either place), the majority are still being very cautious. That's bad news for people hoping that the small businesses that have been financially hurt would spring back immediately, but hopefully good news for where we are in containment of the virus. And, knock on wood, at least for now it seems to be enough to keep the disease spread from ramping back up. I still think it would have been nice to just go all the way with the lockdown from day 1 back in March, actually enforce the rules and keep more people inside, and squashed the curve faster so that by now we'd be a lot more open than we are. But instead we chose the route of making most people only moderately miserable instead for a long time, instead of even slightly more miserable but for a shorter time.