6 ms·
They should keep factories closed, unless they are engaged in solving one of the four problems that need to be solved in order for things to safely re-open: 1.
by skuhn 6y ago
They should keep factories closed, unless they are engaged in solving one of the four problems that need to be solved in order for things to safely re-open:
1. Producing masks, gloves, face shields
2. Producing tests or test supplies (cotton swabs, reagents, etc.)
3. Things related to contact tracing (not sure what material goods this would need off-hand)
4. Vaccine research (again, nothing they could do)
The choice is not between re-open now or never re-open. If we actually had at least the first 3 things above, re-opening could be done in a controlled and safe manner. We still don't have those things, months later.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoAlameda County says it has those things.
- pmiller2 6y agoThere are more places than Alameda County that need those things.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoCertainly true! I hope those places get what they need soon. But if Alameda County can safely start reopening before them, I don't see any value in waiting.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pmiller2 6y agoCitation needed. Where is the testing capacity needed to meet Bay Area criteria to reopen? It wasn't there as of 2 days ago: https://abc7news.com/health/how-close-is-the-bay-area-to-reopening-track-progress-here/6186554/ https://abc7news.com/health/how-close-is-the-bay-area-to-reo... Nor were PPE requirements met.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoAll Bay Area counties other than Santa Clara have interpreted the Bay Area criteria as criteria to fully reopen, so they're admittedly not at the 200 per 100,000 number. But I don't see any reason to second-guess their decision that a partial reopening is safe with fewer tests. Unfortunately, Alameda County doesn't publish daily test counts or anything, so the best citation I have for you is a random news article[1] asserting they're 1/3 of the way to 3100 tests per day. [1] https://www.kqed.org/science/1963889/coronavirus-some-bay-area-counties-are-about-to-open-up-more-heres-where-your-county-stands https://www.kqed.org/science/1963889/coronavirus-some-bay-ar...
- pmiller2 6y agoAnd, reopening with 1/3 of the testing capacity necessary to do so seems wise to you? I hope you don't have any elderly relatives in the area, or any health conditions that would predispose you to a severe case.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI don't agree with the premise. Remember that the full reopening will include extremely high-contact locations like schools, restaurants, bars, and movie theaters. It seems plausible that a limited reopening of only retail and manufacturing is safe with a third of the full amount.
- pmiller2 6y agoCitation needed.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThere's no way to rigorously determine how many tests are needed. The original threshold was an educated guess, and the new phased reopening policy is a different educated guess; all we'll ever have available is educated guesses. The best possible citation is that health officers across the Bay Area have said it's time to start reopening.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y agoThat's insane, here in Europe conditions so much worse compared to California but manufacturing was restarted and not stopped at some places. It's easy to say shut everything down when you have a comfortable wfh tech job and zoom meetings in underwear. Peasants need to make money and feed kids too.
- dmix 6y agoThis should really be judged on a regional level, trying to apply blanket protections to the entire country (besides borders which are a national affair) or even an entire state seems like a bad idea to me. That way it could also move quicker if things actually do turn worse. Since there are plenty of examples already of states and regions opening up without any consequences.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago> It's easy to say shut everything down when you have a comfortable wfh tech job and zoom meetings in underwear. Peasants need to make money and feed kids too. I think you’ve nailed it. The virtuous and vocal “stay home save lives” crowd invariably has almost no skin in the game. They get their food delivered to them (sucks for those folks) and their livelihood is secured. The rest of us are left to fend for ourselves.
- Talanes 6y agoThere is data to the contrary. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/class-war-over-social-distancing/611731/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/class-war-...
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y agoSo we’re to believe it’s actually reversy, and those suffering financial damage from the shutdown actually love it, and the unfortunate WFH cohort are begging to shove their PJs back into the closet and drudge back to the office?
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoYou're forgetting the most important one: Liberal opportunities for people to stay at home if they show symptoms. PPE is fine but that's a backup in case someone sick starts coughing at people. You know in the US far too many people are obsessed with going to work even if sick, because they don't get paid otherwise. This needs to change.
- nickik 6y agoThis view is so insane, that I can hardly wrap my head around how anybody can still believe it.