12 ms·

California imposing sweeping rollback of reopening plans amid case surges

73 points by longdefeat 6y ago

woeirua 6y ago
The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to reinstitute stay-at-home orders?
- nostromo 6y ago
  My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were never tested/counted.
  - Xavdidtheshadow 6y ago
    > deaths (the more important number) One of the more interesting things I've been reading is that we shouldn't think about this as a total binary. There are reports that survivors exhibit have long-term effects, such as neurological issues [1] and lung damage. So yes, it's good that fewer people are dying! But that doesn't mean everything is simply great now. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-infection https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-ef...
    - Bahamut 6y ago
      My guess is that the deaths probably would maintain roughly the same rate for the true number of infected, which is a number we do not know because of asymptomatic cases. That numbers of people testing positive is going up doesn’t mean that the overall rate is going up given we do not know the true infected rate, but number of deaths provides a reasonable proxy for that.
      - fragmede 6y ago
        We understand the disease a bit better, and have better treatments (eg dexamethasone) than we had in March, so I'd expect the true fatality to go down somewhat. (read carefully, this is not in contradiction with the CDC raising their estimate of the IFR). Better treatments are of no use if hospitals are overwhelmed, unfortunately.
      - dwaltrip 6y ago
        The percentage of tests with a positive result has increased, which indicates an increase in the true number of cases. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states
  - codezero 6y ago
    Deaths may look stable/going down, but that's potentially difficult to understand given regional reporting. I think deaths are naturally down as the "first wave" hit many long term care facilities with a much higher death rate than the rest of the population. Check out the SF data: comparing "All California" to Bay Area shows that we're rising in cases and deaths in california as a whole, but flat/declining in northern california. This phenomenon, I believe, is happening all over the place. https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/
  - morsch 6y ago
    > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It happened a week ago. It's easier to see when you look at a moving average. https://imgur.com/a/xGLRjGa https://imgur.com/a/xGLRjGa https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajectory-per-million?yScale=linear&zoomToSelection=true&time=..&country=DEU~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajec...
    - nostromo 6y ago
      Yes, there's a blip at the end of the chart. But the headline is clearly that deaths have fallen ~70% even as total (reported) cases has continued to grow exponentially.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - anarazel 6y ago
        The US wide totals are muddling the picture substantially. Deaths have continued to shrink substantially in previously severely affected states like NY or NJ. The other big issue of course is lag. If you look at daily positive tests, current hospitalizations and newly reported deaths in one graph the lag becomes more visible. Here I e.g. just used a log y axis to show all three in one plot: https://anarazel.de/t/2020-07-13/all_in_one.png https://anarazel.de/t/2020-07-13/all_in_one.png which imo makes that more visible.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        That seems to me to be obfuscating the factors that everyone knows. Cases are growing exponentially in some states, while deaths fell tremendously in the states that previously had the most cases. California and Florida didn't have deaths fall 70%; they had deaths more or less plateau, while the age of the infected shifted younger, and now the increase in cases is getting to the point where it more than compensates for the lower death rate.
      - 6y ago
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > deaths (the more important number) Is it though? > For every one person who dies: > 19 more require hospitalization. > 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. > 10 will have permanent lung damage. > 3 will have strokes. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function. * https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shut-down-the-United-States/answer/Franklin-Veaux https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shu...
    - azinman2 6y ago
      This is the point that so many people miss. We’re also 1/3 of the way to WWII deaths in the US.
    - banads 6y ago
      >18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. Adding critical context: Nearly half of americans are obese and/or have heart disease, and ~650,000 are killed by it each year. How much lower would all those numbers be if americans simply exercised and ate healthy on a regular basis?
    - refurb 6y ago
      How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?). Assume 1% fatality rate for infections (it’s actually lower), you’re saying somewhere 19% to 60% (depending on overlap of those categories) have permanent damage? That’s clearly not what we’re seeing.
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        > How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?). Article links to sources. Interpret as you will. Just a counter-'claim' against the GP that all we have to worry about is the fatality rate. As hospitals fill up, even with a low mortality rate, it means all sorts of other procedures are delayed or cancelled.
      - woeirua 6y ago
  - anarazel 6y ago
    > Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. Your graph shows an increase over the last week. A rolling average shows that more clearly: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths If you look at the currently worse off regions / states you can see the rise in deaths more clearly. E.g. in the south and west there's a pretty clearly recognizable rise: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/regional-deaths https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/regional-deaths Here's a link to per-region stats: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state and some example states with pretty clear trends: AZ: https://public.tableau.com/shared/6GDK353C7?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y&:showVizHome=no https://public.tableau.com/shared/6GDK353C7?:display_count=y... CA: https://public.tableau.com/shared/GKK6SFGNR?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y https://public.tableau.com/shared/GKK6SFGNR?:display_count=y... FL: https://public.tableau.com/shared/P2SSPXC3Y?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y https://public.tableau.com/shared/P2SSPXC3Y?:display_count=y... TX: https://public.tableau.com/shared/M8KY224BR?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y https://public.tableau.com/shared/M8KY224BR?:display_count=y... > deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. Deaths are important, obviously, but they are also a severely lagging indicator. Edit: Formatting
  - hvac 6y ago
    The linked NYT article says that deaths are up 28% over the last two weeks.
    - nostromo 6y ago
      ... after dropping 80% from the peak
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        The places that had the drop in deaths aren't the places that are having the exponential increase in cases now. It makes no sense to say that deaths have plummeted in NY, as cases have too, and therefore Arizona or Florida doesn't have to worry about deaths increasing as cases skyrocket.
  - bachmeier 6y ago
    > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It hasn't? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/coronavirus-deaths-tick-up-in-florida-texas-california-arizona.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/coronavirus-deaths-tick-up-i... You're mixing those states together with New York, for which cases and deaths are strongly positively correlated: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronav...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - digsy 6y ago
    >We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. Deaths are down if you look at the US as a whole. However, if you look at the state level its not always the same picture. Florida's death toll is up from a 7-day rolling average of 51 in April (the peak of its first wave) to 71 as of yesterday.
  - hvac 6y ago
    I can't edit my comment now, but I also just noticed that the CDC recently revised the IFR upwards from 0.26% to 0.65% (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...), apparently as of a few days ago. Our death rate estimates were too low, if anything.
  - bigcorp-slave 6y ago
    Nostromo has been consistently spreading misinformation about the pandemic on HN since it started. When are they going to be banned? Having a wide and healthy discussion on this site does not require that we entertain people advocating mass death. The constant refrain that this isn’t a big deal seems belied somewhat by the five hundred thousand dead people.
  - statop 6y ago
    You guess, keep hearing, seems pretty clear. Thanks doctor. Maybe next you can educate us on why the data you linked literally contradicts everything you said. The trend in deaths is increasing.
shakopeeant 6y ago
Except for protesting, still can't catch it that way.
standardUser 6y ago
California shut down very hard and fast. When they reopened, nearly 100% of the population was still susceptible to the virus, so it spread like wildfire. Especially since the reopening was not exactly slow. Compare this to the Northeast and much of Western Europe where the virus spread too quickly until lockdowns reduced the spread. Now, keeping the transmission rate low in those areas has become comparatively easy, even with wide-scale reopening. Perhaps California could have attempted a middle ground strategy. Let the virus spread just a slight amount more than occurred during the initial lockdown in order to gradually spread immunity. The level of immunity may be nowhere near "herd immunity", but any amount of immunity in a population makes transmission of the virus more difficult. EDIT: Part of why I make this strange argument is because CA seems to have endured a lockdown for virtually no gains. Now, the lockdowns will begin again. Perhaps allowing the virus to spread at a low and manageable rate would have conferred some benefits in terms of increased immunity in the population, thus making it easier to suppress the transmission rate moving forward.
- wtvanhest 6y ago
  I think we should wait to make determinations on cause until we see if that changes once the weather turns in the north and Europe and people return to heated spaces. If this was really a matter of herd immunity, Florida wouldn’t be getting hammered right now.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Why would Florida have high levels of immunity? It was never hit hard until recently. And I don't think this is about herd immunity, but simply about reducing the percent of the population that can infect and become infected, thus driving down the transmission rate.
  - phonebanshee 6y ago
    Don't forget that idea is inverted for lots of the US (like Florida and Arizona). You gather indoors during the summer, in air conditioned spaces. Winter is when you're outside more often.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CerealFounder 6y ago
I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre
- blisseyGo 6y ago
  Because it's unconstitutional and masks don't even work unless they are N95 which are fitted. Neither for the wearer, nor for the people around them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article > Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. > We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ > Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3767.pdf https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3767.pdf > The purpose of a facemask, when worn by a patient suspected or confirmed with an illness such as influenza or tuberculosis, is to reduce the amount of large infectious particles released as the patient talks, sneezes, or coughs; this limits their concentration in the room air and reduces the infection risk to others who are present. > However, facemasks by design do not seal tightly to the wearer’s face. Therefore, they allow unfiltered air to easily flow around the sides of the facemask into the breathing zone and respiratory tract of the wearer. In addition, the materials used for facemasks are not regulated for their ability to filter particles and are known to vary greatly between models. This makes it possible for small particles to pass through or around the facemask and be inhaled by the wearer. This is why they are not considered respiratory protection— facemasks do NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller particles, including those emitted into the room air by a patient who is exhaling or coughing, or generated during certain medical procedures. Also eyes are an entry point too: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.... > Conclusions: Together, these results indicate that ocular surface cells including conjunctiva are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2, and could therefore serve as a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus. This highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease. EDIT: Why is everyone downvoting me? I literally shared multiple studies which state "There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure."
jbaudanza 6y ago
These are the affected counties: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393 https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393 Notably, San Francisco isn’t included. Probably because SF hasn’t opened up as much as other counties on this list.
- jhowell 6y ago
  Neither had Contra Costa, yet here we are.
- ilyagr 6y ago
  It's not just those counties. There are new statewide restrictions: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024 https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024 The counties you listed have additional new restrictions. https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282753656983449600 https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/12827536569834...
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/CR2IF https://archive.is/CR2IF
bigpumpkin 6y ago
Closes all non-critical offices, which for HN, should be big news. How is everyone's company deciding whether it's "critical" or not?
heimatau 6y ago
I'm very grateful for the rollbacks. I was against Newsome but how he's handled this pandemic is better than both Dems/Repubs. I understand he felt he was too 'heavy-handed' in the beginning but it was the correct decision. But...he's trying to appease the 'center' by allowing counties freedom to make decisions. Regardless, he's doing the right thing and I'm glad I moved here a few years ago. In conclusion, I hope Gavin tries to get a real deal on masks (buy them for Californians and give them away at steep discounts) and mandate masks THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE or fear of automatic fines. Japan is doing great and they work indoors but the key is they all wear masks. We need a robust mask policy, asap. P.S. Since I can't reply to the [dead] comment below, let me do that here. The reason why Gavin should do it through the Legislature is for permission and buy-in. It only needs to be temporary but in the same action, one could reduce the price of compliance by leveraging the size of the California govt, heck he could even get businesses involved too, make a really large purchase. This isn't about fines, it's about preventing the spread of covid19.
- TheTruestKyle 6y ago
  I agree with everything except creating legislature. That seems like a slippery slope in a country that doesn't pay for it's citizen's medical expenses.
jhowell 6y ago
This doesn't sound like I want to go the herd immunity route: https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541 https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541

73 points by longdefeat 6y ago

woeirua 6y ago

The only question now is, which state will win the race to be the first to reinstitute stay-at-home orders?

nostromo 6y ago
My guess is that no states will do that. Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png https://i.imgur.com/LMVNbBD.png We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It seems pretty clear now that even our low estimates of fatality were too high and that many people had Covid-19 in March/April/May and were never tested/counted.
- Xavdidtheshadow 6y ago
  > deaths (the more important number) One of the more interesting things I've been reading is that we shouldn't think about this as a total binary. There are reports that survivors exhibit have long-term effects, such as neurological issues [1] and lung damage. So yes, it's good that fewer people are dying! But that doesn't mean everything is simply great now. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-infection https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-ef...
  - Bahamut 6y ago
    My guess is that the deaths probably would maintain roughly the same rate for the true number of infected, which is a number we do not know because of asymptomatic cases. That numbers of people testing positive is going up doesn’t mean that the overall rate is going up given we do not know the true infected rate, but number of deaths provides a reasonable proxy for that.
    - fragmede 6y ago
      We understand the disease a bit better, and have better treatments (eg dexamethasone) than we had in March, so I'd expect the true fatality to go down somewhat. (read carefully, this is not in contradiction with the CDC raising their estimate of the IFR). Better treatments are of no use if hospitals are overwhelmed, unfortunately.
    - dwaltrip 6y ago
      The percentage of tests with a positive result has increased, which indicates an increase in the true number of cases. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/testing/individual-states
- codezero 6y ago
  Deaths may look stable/going down, but that's potentially difficult to understand given regional reporting. I think deaths are naturally down as the "first wave" hit many long term care facilities with a much higher death rate than the rest of the population. Check out the SF data: comparing "All California" to Bay Area shows that we're rising in cases and deaths in california as a whole, but flat/declining in northern california. This phenomenon, I believe, is happening all over the place. https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/
- morsch 6y ago
  > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It happened a week ago. It's easier to see when you look at a moving average. https://imgur.com/a/xGLRjGa https://imgur.com/a/xGLRjGa https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajectory-per-million?yScale=linear&zoomToSelection=true&time=..&country=DEU~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-deaths-trajec...
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Yes, there's a blip at the end of the chart. But the headline is clearly that deaths have fallen ~70% even as total (reported) cases has continued to grow exponentially.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - anarazel 6y ago
      The US wide totals are muddling the picture substantially. Deaths have continued to shrink substantially in previously severely affected states like NY or NJ. The other big issue of course is lag. If you look at daily positive tests, current hospitalizations and newly reported deaths in one graph the lag becomes more visible. Here I e.g. just used a log y axis to show all three in one plot: https://anarazel.de/t/2020-07-13/all_in_one.png https://anarazel.de/t/2020-07-13/all_in_one.png which imo makes that more visible.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      That seems to me to be obfuscating the factors that everyone knows. Cases are growing exponentially in some states, while deaths fell tremendously in the states that previously had the most cases. California and Florida didn't have deaths fall 70%; they had deaths more or less plateau, while the age of the infected shifted younger, and now the increase in cases is getting to the point where it more than compensates for the lower death rate.
    - 6y ago
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > deaths (the more important number) Is it though? > For every one person who dies: > 19 more require hospitalization. > 18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. > 10 will have permanent lung damage. > 3 will have strokes. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to chronic weakness and loss of coordination. > 2 will have neurological damage that leads to loss of cognitive function. * https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shut-down-the-United-States/answer/Franklin-Veaux https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-disease-with-1-mortality-shu...
  - azinman2 6y ago
    This is the point that so many people miss. We’re also 1/3 of the way to WWII deaths in the US.
  - banads 6y ago
    >18 of those will have permanent heart damage for the rest of their lives. Adding critical context: Nearly half of americans are obese and/or have heart disease, and ~650,000 are killed by it each year. How much lower would all those numbers be if americans simply exercised and ate healthy on a regular basis?
  - refurb 6y ago
    How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?). Assume 1% fatality rate for infections (it’s actually lower), you’re saying somewhere 19% to 60% (depending on overlap of those categories) have permanent damage? That’s clearly not what we’re seeing.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > How does this pass the sniff test (or am I misinterpreting it?). Article links to sources. Interpret as you will. Just a counter-'claim' against the GP that all we have to worry about is the fatality rate. As hospitals fill up, even with a low mortality rate, it means all sorts of other procedures are delayed or cancelled.
    - woeirua 6y ago
- anarazel 6y ago
  > Even as the number of cases goes up, deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. Your graph shows an increase over the last week. A rolling average shows that more clearly: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-deaths If you look at the currently worse off regions / states you can see the rise in deaths more clearly. E.g. in the south and west there's a pretty clearly recognizable rise: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/regional-deaths https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/regional-deaths Here's a link to per-region stats: https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/all-metrics-per-state and some example states with pretty clear trends: AZ: https://public.tableau.com/shared/6GDK353C7?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y&:showVizHome=no https://public.tableau.com/shared/6GDK353C7?:display_count=y... CA: https://public.tableau.com/shared/GKK6SFGNR?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y https://public.tableau.com/shared/GKK6SFGNR?:display_count=y... FL: https://public.tableau.com/shared/P2SSPXC3Y?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y https://public.tableau.com/shared/P2SSPXC3Y?:display_count=y... TX: https://public.tableau.com/shared/M8KY224BR?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link&:embed=y https://public.tableau.com/shared/M8KY224BR?:display_count=y... > deaths (the more important number) keeps coming down. Deaths are important, obviously, but they are also a severely lagging indicator. Edit: Formatting
- hvac 6y ago
  The linked NYT article says that deaths are up 28% over the last two weeks.
  - nostromo 6y ago
    ... after dropping 80% from the peak
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      The places that had the drop in deaths aren't the places that are having the exponential increase in cases now. It makes no sense to say that deaths have plummeted in NY, as cases have too, and therefore Arizona or Florida doesn't have to worry about deaths increasing as cases skyrocket.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  > We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. It hasn't? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/coronavirus-deaths-tick-up-in-florida-texas-california-arizona.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/10/coronavirus-deaths-tick-up-i... You're mixing those states together with New York, for which cases and deaths are strongly positively correlated: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronavirus-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/new-york-coronav...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- digsy 6y ago
  >We keep hearing about how this trend will reverse soon, ("two weeks from now"), but that hasn't happened yet. Deaths are down if you look at the US as a whole. However, if you look at the state level its not always the same picture. Florida's death toll is up from a 7-day rolling average of 51 in April (the peak of its first wave) to 71 as of yesterday.
- hvac 6y ago
  I can't edit my comment now, but I also just noticed that the CDC recently revised the IFR upwards from 0.26% to 0.65% (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...), apparently as of a few days ago. Our death rate estimates were too low, if anything.
- bigcorp-slave 6y ago
  Nostromo has been consistently spreading misinformation about the pandemic on HN since it started. When are they going to be banned? Having a wide and healthy discussion on this site does not require that we entertain people advocating mass death. The constant refrain that this isn’t a big deal seems belied somewhat by the five hundred thousand dead people.
- statop 6y ago
  You guess, keep hearing, seems pretty clear. Thanks doctor. Maybe next you can educate us on why the data you linked literally contradicts everything you said. The trend in deaths is increasing.

shakopeeant 6y ago

Except for protesting, still can't catch it that way.

standardUser 6y ago

California shut down very hard and fast. When they reopened, nearly 100% of the population was still susceptible to the virus, so it spread like wildfire. Especially since the reopening was not exactly slow. Compare this to the Northeast and much of Western Europe where the virus spread too quickly until lockdowns reduced the spread. Now, keeping the transmission rate low in those areas has become comparatively easy, even with wide-scale reopening. Perhaps California could have attempted a middle ground strategy. Let the virus spread just a slight amount more than occurred during the initial lockdown in order to gradually spread immunity. The level of immunity may be nowhere near "herd immunity", but any amount of immunity in a population makes transmission of the virus more difficult. EDIT: Part of why I make this strange argument is because CA seems to have endured a lockdown for virtually no gains. Now, the lockdowns will begin again. Perhaps allowing the virus to spread at a low and manageable rate would have conferred some benefits in terms of increased immunity in the population, thus making it easier to suppress the transmission rate moving forward.

wtvanhest 6y ago
I think we should wait to make determinations on cause until we see if that changes once the weather turns in the north and Europe and people return to heated spaces. If this was really a matter of herd immunity, Florida wouldn’t be getting hammered right now.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Why would Florida have high levels of immunity? It was never hit hard until recently. And I don't think this is about herd immunity, but simply about reducing the percent of the population that can infect and become infected, thus driving down the transmission rate.
- phonebanshee 6y ago
  Don't forget that idea is inverted for lots of the US (like Florida and Arizona). You gather indoors during the summer, in air conditioned spaces. Winter is when you're outside more often.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

CerealFounder 6y ago

I dont understand for the life of me why the state cant get tough on masks and distancing with the rule of law. All they do is put out suggestions and guildelines. Until they flex the guidlines with some muscle it's just theatre

blisseyGo 6y ago
Because it's unconstitutional and masks don't even work unless they are N95 which are fitted. Neither for the wearer, nor for the people around them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7181938/ https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article https://www.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article > Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. > We did not consider the use of respirators in the community. Respirators are tight-fitting masks that can protect the wearer from fine particles (37) and should provide better protection against influenza virus exposures when properly worn because of higher filtration efficiency. However, respirators, such as N95 and P2 masks, work best when they are fit-tested, and these masks will be in limited supply during the next pandemic. These specialist devices should be reserved for use in healthcare settings or in special subpopulations such as immunocompromised persons in the community, first responders, and those performing other critical community functions, as supplies permit. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ > Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3767.pdf https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3767.pdf > The purpose of a facemask, when worn by a patient suspected or confirmed with an illness such as influenza or tuberculosis, is to reduce the amount of large infectious particles released as the patient talks, sneezes, or coughs; this limits their concentration in the room air and reduces the infection risk to others who are present. > However, facemasks by design do not seal tightly to the wearer’s face. Therefore, they allow unfiltered air to easily flow around the sides of the facemask into the breathing zone and respiratory tract of the wearer. In addition, the materials used for facemasks are not regulated for their ability to filter particles and are known to vary greatly between models. This makes it possible for small particles to pass through or around the facemask and be inhaled by the wearer. This is why they are not considered respiratory protection— facemasks do NOT provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller particles, including those emitted into the room air by a patient who is exhaling or coughing, or generated during certain medical procedures. Also eyes are an entry point too: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.09.086165v1.... > Conclusions: Together, these results indicate that ocular surface cells including conjunctiva are susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2, and could therefore serve as a portal of entry as well as a reservoir for person-to-person transmission of this virus. This highlights the importance of safety practices including face masks and ocular contact precautions in preventing the spread of COVID-19 disease. EDIT: Why is everyone downvoting me? I literally shared multiple studies which state "There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure."

jbaudanza 6y ago

These are the affected counties: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393 https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282780070323515393 Notably, San Francisco isn’t included. Probably because SF hasn’t opened up as much as other counties on this list.

jhowell 6y ago
Neither had Contra Costa, yet here we are.
ilyagr 6y ago
It's not just those counties. There are new statewide restrictions: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024 https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282752861835649024 The counties you listed have additional new restrictions. https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1282753656983449600 https://mobile.twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/12827536569834...

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/CR2IF https://archive.is/CR2IF

bigpumpkin 6y ago

Closes all non-critical offices, which for HN, should be big news. How is everyone's company deciding whether it's "critical" or not?

heimatau 6y ago

I'm very grateful for the rollbacks. I was against Newsome but how he's handled this pandemic is better than both Dems/Repubs. I understand he felt he was too 'heavy-handed' in the beginning but it was the correct decision. But...he's trying to appease the 'center' by allowing counties freedom to make decisions. Regardless, he's doing the right thing and I'm glad I moved here a few years ago. In conclusion, I hope Gavin tries to get a real deal on masks (buy them for Californians and give them away at steep discounts) and mandate masks THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE or fear of automatic fines. Japan is doing great and they work indoors but the key is they all wear masks. We need a robust mask policy, asap. P.S. Since I can't reply to the [dead] comment below, let me do that here. The reason why Gavin should do it through the Legislature is for permission and buy-in. It only needs to be temporary but in the same action, one could reduce the price of compliance by leveraging the size of the California govt, heck he could even get businesses involved too, make a really large purchase. This isn't about fines, it's about preventing the spread of covid19.

TheTruestKyle 6y ago
I agree with everything except creating legislature. That seems like a slippery slope in a country that doesn't pay for it's citizen's medical expenses.

jhowell 6y ago

This doesn't sound like I want to go the herd immunity route: https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541 https://twitter.com/DaniOliver/status/1279155358666305541