3 ms·

What's the rationale behind the criteria of LA ? "No death in the past 14 days" ? That's nuts. the rest of the criteria might be workable. European countries h

What's the rationale behind the criteria of LA ? "No death in the past 14 days" ? That's nuts. the rest of the criteria might be workable. European countries have opened up with less than that, and it hasn't been a disaster so far. This is also just dumb: Face coverings will be required when not in the water, and sunbathing won’t be allowed.

Trasmatta 6y ago
Somebody else linked Goodhart's law in this thread, and I think that's pretty applicable. Using these measures as strict criteria rather than looking at the bigger picture that they paint seems like a huge mistake. All of LA can't open if just a single 95 year old person dies of COVID in the past two weeks?
- wahern 6y ago
  You're complaining about a metric--"No death in the past 14 days"--that doesn't exist and merely posed rhetorically. The principle metric in California, as almost anywhere else, is access to widespread testing. Testing resources are only a fraction of what they need to be in order for the state to be able to even theoretically contain outbreaks under ideal circumstances. The Federal government should have been all over this months ago, but it refuses to accept responsibility even though it's the only entity in the nation that can make it happen anytime soon. Secondly, daily reported cases are continuing to rise in California. So to suggest the criteria is no new deaths is ridiculous. Rather, it appears they were originally hoping to wait for a cessation in the increase in daily deaths, but that appears to not be in the cards given how shelter-in-place compliance will never be as good as it was a few weeks ago. The dilemma here is either playing with people's livelihoods vs playing with their lives. These are two different things, as anyone who's lived in a war zone or famine would attest. I'm pretty sure I know which one most people would choose if they were faced with the stark choice, but they're rarely faced with that choice, or if they are they deny it and move on. That's basic human behavior and I don't expect that change, but it's important to understand the distinction when criticizing a public leader making population-wide choices. FWIW, nearly 1/3 of Americans are 55+. It's amazing how quickly we turn to infighting. How ironic, yet entirely unsurprising, that most of the people we're so quickly willing to sacrifice are the ones who literally went to war--WWII, Korea, and Vietnam--for the United States.
  - buboard 6y ago
    The criteria are stated in the presentation linked in the article
    - wahern 6y ago
      I stand corrected. Leaving my comment unedited so I suffer the embarrassment in perpetuity. FWIW, the 14 day criteria is for moving from stage II to stage III (or quasi stage-III--it's a stage II "variance"). Stage III reopens places like gyms and movie theaters. But in stage II most places can open, including factories, so long as they maintain social distancing. Stage II appears to be where China, etc, are still at.
      - Trasmatta 6y ago
        That's a good point on the criteria being for Stage III, in which case it seems more reasonable. I do still hope that when the decision comes to move to that stage, that they look at the full picture rather than relying just on the metric.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I understand why you might assume that it's a merely rhetorical metric, but it is not so. The state government's official guidance is that restaurants and malls should not reopen until there have been no deaths in the past 14 days.
  - Trasmatta 6y ago
    > You're complaining about a metric--"No death in the past 14 days"--that doesn't exist and merely posed rhetorically. ...except it is a criteria explicitly specified by California? https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.7.20-Presentation.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.7.20-Pre... I don't see how the wording in that document can be interpreted as "not existing" / "posed rhetorically".

Trasmatta 6y ago

Somebody else linked Goodhart's law in this thread, and I think that's pretty applicable. Using these measures as strict criteria rather than looking at the bigger picture that they paint seems like a huge mistake. All of LA can't open if just a single 95 year old person dies of COVID in the past two weeks?

wahern 6y ago
You're complaining about a metric--"No death in the past 14 days"--that doesn't exist and merely posed rhetorically. The principle metric in California, as almost anywhere else, is access to widespread testing. Testing resources are only a fraction of what they need to be in order for the state to be able to even theoretically contain outbreaks under ideal circumstances. The Federal government should have been all over this months ago, but it refuses to accept responsibility even though it's the only entity in the nation that can make it happen anytime soon. Secondly, daily reported cases are continuing to rise in California. So to suggest the criteria is no new deaths is ridiculous. Rather, it appears they were originally hoping to wait for a cessation in the increase in daily deaths, but that appears to not be in the cards given how shelter-in-place compliance will never be as good as it was a few weeks ago. The dilemma here is either playing with people's livelihoods vs playing with their lives. These are two different things, as anyone who's lived in a war zone or famine would attest. I'm pretty sure I know which one most people would choose if they were faced with the stark choice, but they're rarely faced with that choice, or if they are they deny it and move on. That's basic human behavior and I don't expect that change, but it's important to understand the distinction when criticizing a public leader making population-wide choices. FWIW, nearly 1/3 of Americans are 55+. It's amazing how quickly we turn to infighting. How ironic, yet entirely unsurprising, that most of the people we're so quickly willing to sacrifice are the ones who literally went to war--WWII, Korea, and Vietnam--for the United States.
- buboard 6y ago
  The criteria are stated in the presentation linked in the article
  - wahern 6y ago
    I stand corrected. Leaving my comment unedited so I suffer the embarrassment in perpetuity. FWIW, the 14 day criteria is for moving from stage II to stage III (or quasi stage-III--it's a stage II "variance"). Stage III reopens places like gyms and movie theaters. But in stage II most places can open, including factories, so long as they maintain social distancing. Stage II appears to be where China, etc, are still at.
    - Trasmatta 6y ago
      That's a good point on the criteria being for Stage III, in which case it seems more reasonable. I do still hope that when the decision comes to move to that stage, that they look at the full picture rather than relying just on the metric.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I understand why you might assume that it's a merely rhetorical metric, but it is not so. The state government's official guidance is that restaurants and malls should not reopen until there have been no deaths in the past 14 days.
- Trasmatta 6y ago
  > You're complaining about a metric--"No death in the past 14 days"--that doesn't exist and merely posed rhetorically. ...except it is a criteria explicitly specified by California? https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.7.20-Presentation.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/5.7.20-Pre... I don't see how the wording in that document can be interpreted as "not existing" / "posed rhetorically".