13 ms·

California's new lockdown could be brutal for the economy

69 points by LinuxBender 6y ago

mcdramamean 6y ago
Why don't we.... 1. Allow pharmacies to test for COVID (currently illegal in California) 2. Make COVID testing mandatory every 2 weeks via a statewide digital system (like jury duty). California could then partner will pharmacies to allow wider spread testing. We could even create jobs by hiring and training those who are unemployed to administer the actual tests. 3. Make it mandatory that every business/person use the statewide system to scan people to ensure they have been tested recently. That, combined with temperature checks at the door will serve to catch any issues quickly; as well as providing REAL TIME feed back to the state about possible infections and outbreaks It seems to me that pandemics are the new normal. We aren't going to have a vaccine ready for every virus within 1-2 years; so it seems prudent for us to invest in a good system now with a virus that isn't as deadly. What does everyone else think? I really would like to create a thread and have some of the best minds (yes that's you) work on a real solution. Let's plan it and build it!
samtho 6y ago
I'm from California and what blows my mind is that places like gyms, bars, and restaurants were allowed to have people indoors before places personal care places like hair and nail salons, barbers, waxing centers, and tattoo parlors because all these professions (for the most part) follow good sanitization practices. And unlike restaurants and bars, these are not places you'd bring large groups as the services rendered are 1-on-1 typically. Liquor stores are still open, why are bars needed? I cannot cut my own hair (well) for example, and tattoo parlors, waxing centers, and salons all have specialty tools and services you simply cannot do at home. Also, why are we not focused on making sure education is able to start back up in the fall? Why did we prioritize opening restaurants (who already has a revenue stream: togo orders) and bars? I get recreational stuff is needed, but the bars, for example should be among the last to open. It sucks for the business owner, and they need more federal support to stay afloat. How are paying this much in tax and getting nothing when we need it the most?
- ykevinator 6y ago
  They should have done a restaurant bail out bill only
- tenuousemphasis 6y ago
  >How are we paying this much in tax and getting nothing when we need it the most? Corruption. Just look at the types of organizations that did get enormous PPP "loans" (actually grants, free money when used spent at least 60% on wages).
  - umeshunni 6y ago
    > Just look at the types of organizations that did get enormous PPP "loans" Given that the state of California isn't the the entity that's handing out PPP loans, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. > Corruption Agree with your broader assessment of what's wrong with California. Ultimately, the people in charge have realized that they can continue their corrupt ways and as long as they keep the NIMBY landowner class happy with low property taxes and the limousine liberal crowd happy with virtue signalling moves, they will get their votes.
  - otachack 6y ago
    The nature of PPP seemed to be "just get it out there" by leveraging the banks but it didn't occur to government how big the influx of applicants would be and smaller business got shafted since they don't have the same resources as bigger businesses. So, you have situations where mom&pop sized businesses are constantly on the phone trying to get into PPP while trying to keep their business afloat by last minute transitioning to pick-up/delivery models. Meanwhile, bigger institutions can sic a dedicated team to PPP. By the time m&p get the PPP (if ever) it's already been exhausted or the amount was trivial. What a mess.
    - samtho 6y ago
      This is a classic example of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The problem congress had was simple: Businesses need help keeping staff and paying bills. The solution was also simple, give the businesses some cash asap. To implement this solution would prove to be tricky as magically poofing billions of dollars into the hands of these businesses requires a lot more than just handing a check to people who filed taxes and thus were on record. They thought they would leverage an institution that already issues money to their audience here: business loans. This sounds great, right? Fed says (not a direct quote), "Go ahead and issue money to (almost) any business who asks for it and we will guarantee it" and, "Businesses who qualify will have it forgiven." It uses a system already in place to get cash out fast to people, rather than the law requiring a website to be built out among other bits of infrastructure as by the time this is done, many businesses would have likely gone under when this cash could have helped them prevent that. The problems, however, present themselves very quickly. First, banks were reluctant to loan money out to organizations with no credit, but the fed guaranteed all of these loans, right? Well, kind of. They guaranteed up to an amount issued but if banks loaned out more, they would be on the hook for servicing that loan to a business that is already struggling. The information as how this would be divided amongst banks was also unclear. In short, banks did not trust that congress would have their backs if something got messed up with the interpretation of the language and delegation of available funds. The second issue was where they favored large businesses who would likely have been able to weather the pandemic and thus they could collect the loan from if Uncle Sam did not end up backing it for technicalities. It's also easier to make 100 large loans of $100,000 than 500 small loans of $20,000. Small businesses represent more than 2/3 (fig. might be outdated) of all businesses, they are typically among the top employers in rural areas, providing livelihoods to people living in smaller communities and this shit has screwed them big time. Many have closed, and more will close, that will never reopen again.
erehweb 6y ago
Compared to what? Governments that try to trade safety for the economy will end up with neither.
- Applejinx 6y ago
  This, emphatically. All that will happen is places will explode with plague: the way to prevent that happening is to lock down completely, and the way to keep it within 'we still have sort of an economy' parameters is to cope with severe economic hits due to the change in people's behavior. Otherwise, it's arguing with physics, which seems to be in fashion and has really predictable results with no outliers or exceptions. We've already made sure the 'before times' economy is gone forever. We're now working out what we can have, instead. That's an interesting design challenge and we're certainly not out of ideas, but 'keep the old economy' is simply not on the table.
- LaMarseillaise 6y ago
  I keep seeing and hearing this sentiment, but I think it is a false dichotomy. There have been places that responded effectively to the crisis without lockdowns (Iceland, for example). The choices are not strict, widespread, extended lockdowns or no response at all, with nothing in between. We may yet find that those who undertook either of those strategies have both poor economic and health outcomes.
  - nutjob2 6y ago
    Those places have a populace that is cooperative and considerate of others. In a more "each man for himself" culture it doesn't work so well.
  - kelchm 6y ago
    There's also the fact that people are not robots -- just because you tell them to do something doesn't mean they will do it. As an example -- even among people that are wearing masks consistently, how many of them are actually following the correct protocols around mask resuse or fit?
DiffEq 6y ago
So...what is the mortality rate down to these days?
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Mortality is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot more people get hospitalized. Some end up with permanent cognitive disorders. Long term lung and/ or heart damage is also common. > The UK National Health Service assumes that of Covid-19 patients who have required hospitalization, 45 percent will need ongoing medical care, 4 percent will require inpatient rehabilitation, and 1 percent will permanently require acute care. Other preliminary evidence, as well as historical research on other coronaviruses like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), suggests that for some people, a full recovery might still be years off. For others, there may be no returning to normal. Strokes and permanent cognitive disorder are also common: > Blood clots that form in or reach the brain can cause a stroke. Although strokes are more typically seen in older people, strokes are now being reported even in young Covid-19 patients. In Wuhan, China, about 5 percent of hospitalized Covid-19 patients had strokes, and a similar pattern was reported with SARS. https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-effects-symptoms https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-...
  - arichard123 6y ago
    And according to [1] 125,117 patients were admitted to hospital based on 290,133 positive tests. So about 43% of UK people who test positive are being hospitalized. So that's really bad. 1: https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/ https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/
    - lsllc 6y ago
      For comparison with the UK, Massachusetts has had 111K cases total with approx. 11K hospitalizations [0], so about 10%. The average age of COVID-19 cases is 51, the average age of hospitalization is 68 and the average age of deaths is 82. NOTE: The state dashboard doesn't seem to specifically show the total hospitalizations, just a graph only over the last 3 months. However, on Page 19 [0] there's a breakdown of total hospitalization by ethnicity that shows a total of 111,827 cases and 11,611 hospitalizations (across all known and unknown ethnicities). [0] https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-july-13-2020/download https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-july-13-2020/dow...
option 6y ago
I wish our “leaders” (federal, state, local) had at least approximate plan further than half a month into the future.
- apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
  I feel like half a month is being generous. They don't have a plan for 3 days in the future, it seems.
  - yetanta 6y ago
    They better get one. As they just made their tax issues even bigger.
- giardini 6y ago
  Our "leaders" likely know little better than we and we barely know what is happening. Under such circumstances it is difficult to know "the right thing" to do. The public is so naive that they cannot comprehend a monotonically increasing function (e.g., total deaths/cases). The news daily points out "the total number of deaths/cases is increasing &c...", a trivial truism in an epidemic, yet it engenders fear and panic.
  - option 6y ago
    a good reminder to people to vote in elections based on candidates’ track record and not based on FB/youtube ads
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      "Who do you want running your country/state when a pandemic hits" is a different axis than most voters have historically decided on. We're finding out that competence matters, not just ideology.
      - giardini 6y ago
        AnimalPuppet says>""Who do you want running your country/state when a pandemic hits" is a different axis than most voters have historically decided on. We're finding out that competence matters, not just ideology."< I am unconvinced that one should choose leaders based on the likelihood of a pandemic, nor do I believe that one can predict competence under such circumstances given our contentious political environment. Its all a crapshoot and someone has stolen the dice.
daveslash 6y ago
Thank you for posting the CNN text-only version instead of the "full experience" version. For those who aren't aware, https://lite.cnn.com https://lite.cnn.com is text only, but has all the same articles/headlines as the main site.. [Edit] Additionally, There's also https://text.npr.org https://text.npr.org
dehrmann 6y ago
This should worry people more than they realize. I've been keeping an eye on the Bay Area's COVID-19 case rate: https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ Something obviously happened in early June that drove new cases up. What worries me is the only place you'll get better compliance with mask wearing and social distancing in the US is NYC, leading me to think "just wear a mask" isn't enough. There's no version of reopening anything indoors that works. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, a city that has generally had COVID-19 under control, has just banned gatherings of more than four people. There a case report from China, I think, where people seated more than six feet apart at a restaurant got infected, possibly through fans or an HVAC system. I also saw the slightly disingenuous (he didn't quite say that) headline that "Dr. Anthony Fauci says U.S. coronavirus cases are surging because nation didn’t totally shut down." Ignoring the bit about a surge, a longer, harder shutdown isn't a fix, either. Look at countries that had stricter shutdowns. Pockets are still popping up. If the virus is active at all in an area, anything indoors risks spreading it, and there's no escape from whack-a-mole lockdowns...unless you're New Zealand. Maybe.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Something obviously happened in early June that drove new cases up. It's likely secondary infections from people who caught it Memorial Day weekend.
  - skellington 6y ago
    Oh sure, it was Memorial Day, not the mass groupings of people who were protesting for BLM.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      If this were primarily related to BLM protests, the COVID hotspots would be the places where BLM protests were biggest, not Arizona, California, and Texas. > The new research, which was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found no evidence that coronavirus cases jumped in 315 cities in the weeks following the first protests. I'm sure BLM numbers affected it, but there were also millions of people who went to beaches, bars, and barbecues on Memorial Day Weekend as well who seemed to have moved the needle much more. NYC, where there were massive BLM demonstrations, just had it's first day with zero COVID deaths in months.
beefok 6y ago
"could be brutal for the economy" Uhh, racking up deaths WILL be way more brutal for the economy.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Likewise, having the millions of people who don't die but end up in the hospital for weeks, get permanently disabled, cognitive damage, etc etc. I think people are over-indexing on fatalities which greatly underestimates the scope here.
  - beefok 6y ago
    I agree completely. Just the way the market is going proves that this society is built on a foundation of pure instant gratification to such a level that they can't even understand the realities of a pandemic. We're FUCKED at this point, and the people who should know what to do are drinking the fucking koolaid. I'm just done with anti-intellectualism altogether.
  - rurp 6y ago
    > I think people are over-indexing on fatalities I totally agree. The death rate is about all I hear about but it's only one part of the risk. For every death there are many people who experience terrible health complications, many of which are long lasting and maybe even permanent.
    - nimaco 6y ago
      Ok agreed. But what are the actual numbers here? I keep hearing "many people", but not one has given me a % as is available for the death rate.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    There's also the greater point in that we have no clue how long immunity is conferred for once someone has caught the virus. There seems to be some indications that people that were asymptomatic or had an otherwise mild response might have shorter term immunity, which means we might revisit this pandemic in a matter of months if we were to simply give up.
jasonv 6y ago
As an SF East Bay person: I've spoken at length with my best friend, a doctor, and a neighbor, also a doctor -- both of whom believe it's not rational to shut down the economy for the risks of this pandemic, particularly w/r/t the demographics of those most at risk given the (relatively low) mortality rate. Neither are Trump/GOP supporters. I've spoken at length with others.. not doctors.. who think it's not rational to open up at all, and that things need to be shut down further until progress is made. My workplace recently sent out a survey and asked if we were ready to come back to the office, if there were those who were interested in volunteering for a Back to Office pilot project. My team all voted against, with "commuting on Bart" as the first and conclusive deal-breaker. I also don't want to sit in an office with a mask on all day. So, for now, WFH. Of course, if I was subject to unemployment... I don't think I'd change my vote but I would have a different emotional response to the question. (FWIW, I was let go from a contract gig during the first week of SIP, and was hired a week later by a company I'd been in process with for a few weeks).
- ghshephard 6y ago
  I'm in Ann Arbor Michigan, and we've been back in the office for a month now (with lots of precautions). While not as safe for others, an N95 mask isn't too bad to wear if you can get one - about the only issue is the elastic carves indentations into the soft tissue of your skull that takes several hours to return to normal - I'm kind of worried that I'm permanently damaging the bone - but I figure Doctors/Nurses do this for 8 hours/day as well. Oh, also Coffee can only be drunk on officially (socially distanced) coffee breaks. Which is kind of weird. I figure as long as everyone is wearing a mask, the office is well ventilated (we have open windows), you are socially distanced and clorox-the-hell out of everything a couple times. And we are also essentially bathing in Ethyl-Alcohol at this point. Dispensers placed around the office and people scrubbing down anytime you touch anything.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    > an N95 mask isn't too bad to wear if you can get one You realize these don't filter outgoing air right? If you have CoV2, you're literally spraying everyone around you with it if you wear these masks.
gumby 6y ago
The thing that is forgotten in these reductio analyses is that the economy is made of people, so if they die you have no economy either. The evidence from 1918/19 is that early opening, or failure to close down again when opening fails, leads to stronger economic growth. It’s a shame some wish to learn this from themselves instead of from the suffering of people a century ago.
- robotron 6y ago
  Hopefully we'll learn for the third time when something crops up again?
squabble 6y ago
The government shouldn't continue to prop up businesses and systems which are not essential. Help people who are affected by the disruption, but not outdated systems.

69 points by LinuxBender 6y ago

Why don't we.... 1. Allow pharmacies to test for COVID (currently illegal in California) 2. Make COVID testing mandatory every 2 weeks via a statewide digital system (like jury duty). California could then partner will pharmacies to allow wider spread testing. We could even create jobs by hiring and training those who are unemployed to administer the actual tests. 3. Make it mandatory that every business/person use the statewide system to scan people to ensure they have been tested recently. That, combined with temperature checks at the door will serve to catch any issues quickly; as well as providing REAL TIME feed back to the state about possible infections and outbreaks It seems to me that pandemics are the new normal. We aren't going to have a vaccine ready for every virus within 1-2 years; so it seems prudent for us to invest in a good system now with a virus that isn't as deadly. What does everyone else think? I really would like to create a thread and have some of the best minds (yes that's you) work on a real solution. Let's plan it and build it!

samtho 6y ago

I'm from California and what blows my mind is that places like gyms, bars, and restaurants were allowed to have people indoors before places personal care places like hair and nail salons, barbers, waxing centers, and tattoo parlors because all these professions (for the most part) follow good sanitization practices. And unlike restaurants and bars, these are not places you'd bring large groups as the services rendered are 1-on-1 typically. Liquor stores are still open, why are bars needed? I cannot cut my own hair (well) for example, and tattoo parlors, waxing centers, and salons all have specialty tools and services you simply cannot do at home. Also, why are we not focused on making sure education is able to start back up in the fall? Why did we prioritize opening restaurants (who already has a revenue stream: togo orders) and bars? I get recreational stuff is needed, but the bars, for example should be among the last to open. It sucks for the business owner, and they need more federal support to stay afloat. How are paying this much in tax and getting nothing when we need it the most?

ykevinator 6y ago
They should have done a restaurant bail out bill only
tenuousemphasis 6y ago
>How are we paying this much in tax and getting nothing when we need it the most? Corruption. Just look at the types of organizations that did get enormous PPP "loans" (actually grants, free money when used spent at least 60% on wages).
- umeshunni 6y ago
  > Just look at the types of organizations that did get enormous PPP "loans" Given that the state of California isn't the the entity that's handing out PPP loans, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. > Corruption Agree with your broader assessment of what's wrong with California. Ultimately, the people in charge have realized that they can continue their corrupt ways and as long as they keep the NIMBY landowner class happy with low property taxes and the limousine liberal crowd happy with virtue signalling moves, they will get their votes.
- otachack 6y ago
  The nature of PPP seemed to be "just get it out there" by leveraging the banks but it didn't occur to government how big the influx of applicants would be and smaller business got shafted since they don't have the same resources as bigger businesses. So, you have situations where mom&pop sized businesses are constantly on the phone trying to get into PPP while trying to keep their business afloat by last minute transitioning to pick-up/delivery models. Meanwhile, bigger institutions can sic a dedicated team to PPP. By the time m&p get the PPP (if ever) it's already been exhausted or the amount was trivial. What a mess.
  - samtho 6y ago
    This is a classic example of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." The problem congress had was simple: Businesses need help keeping staff and paying bills. The solution was also simple, give the businesses some cash asap. To implement this solution would prove to be tricky as magically poofing billions of dollars into the hands of these businesses requires a lot more than just handing a check to people who filed taxes and thus were on record. They thought they would leverage an institution that already issues money to their audience here: business loans. This sounds great, right? Fed says (not a direct quote), "Go ahead and issue money to (almost) any business who asks for it and we will guarantee it" and, "Businesses who qualify will have it forgiven." It uses a system already in place to get cash out fast to people, rather than the law requiring a website to be built out among other bits of infrastructure as by the time this is done, many businesses would have likely gone under when this cash could have helped them prevent that. The problems, however, present themselves very quickly. First, banks were reluctant to loan money out to organizations with no credit, but the fed guaranteed all of these loans, right? Well, kind of. They guaranteed up to an amount issued but if banks loaned out more, they would be on the hook for servicing that loan to a business that is already struggling. The information as how this would be divided amongst banks was also unclear. In short, banks did not trust that congress would have their backs if something got messed up with the interpretation of the language and delegation of available funds. The second issue was where they favored large businesses who would likely have been able to weather the pandemic and thus they could collect the loan from if Uncle Sam did not end up backing it for technicalities. It's also easier to make 100 large loans of $100,000 than 500 small loans of $20,000. Small businesses represent more than 2/3 (fig. might be outdated) of all businesses, they are typically among the top employers in rural areas, providing livelihoods to people living in smaller communities and this shit has screwed them big time. Many have closed, and more will close, that will never reopen again.

erehweb 6y ago

Compared to what? Governments that try to trade safety for the economy will end up with neither.

Applejinx 6y ago
This, emphatically. All that will happen is places will explode with plague: the way to prevent that happening is to lock down completely, and the way to keep it within 'we still have sort of an economy' parameters is to cope with severe economic hits due to the change in people's behavior. Otherwise, it's arguing with physics, which seems to be in fashion and has really predictable results with no outliers or exceptions. We've already made sure the 'before times' economy is gone forever. We're now working out what we can have, instead. That's an interesting design challenge and we're certainly not out of ideas, but 'keep the old economy' is simply not on the table.
LaMarseillaise 6y ago
I keep seeing and hearing this sentiment, but I think it is a false dichotomy. There have been places that responded effectively to the crisis without lockdowns (Iceland, for example). The choices are not strict, widespread, extended lockdowns or no response at all, with nothing in between. We may yet find that those who undertook either of those strategies have both poor economic and health outcomes.
- nutjob2 6y ago
  Those places have a populace that is cooperative and considerate of others. In a more "each man for himself" culture it doesn't work so well.
- kelchm 6y ago
  There's also the fact that people are not robots -- just because you tell them to do something doesn't mean they will do it. As an example -- even among people that are wearing masks consistently, how many of them are actually following the correct protocols around mask resuse or fit?

DiffEq 6y ago

So...what is the mortality rate down to these days?

ogre_codes 6y ago
Mortality is just the tip of the iceberg. A lot more people get hospitalized. Some end up with permanent cognitive disorders. Long term lung and/ or heart damage is also common. > The UK National Health Service assumes that of Covid-19 patients who have required hospitalization, 45 percent will need ongoing medical care, 4 percent will require inpatient rehabilitation, and 1 percent will permanently require acute care. Other preliminary evidence, as well as historical research on other coronaviruses like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), suggests that for some people, a full recovery might still be years off. For others, there may be no returning to normal. Strokes and permanent cognitive disorder are also common: > Blood clots that form in or reach the brain can cause a stroke. Although strokes are more typically seen in older people, strokes are now being reported even in young Covid-19 patients. In Wuhan, China, about 5 percent of hospitalized Covid-19 patients had strokes, and a similar pattern was reported with SARS. https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-effects-symptoms https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/21251899/coronavirus-long-term-...
- arichard123 6y ago
  And according to [1] 125,117 patients were admitted to hospital based on 290,133 positive tests. So about 43% of UK people who test positive are being hospitalized. So that's really bad. 1: https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/ https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/
  - lsllc 6y ago
    For comparison with the UK, Massachusetts has had 111K cases total with approx. 11K hospitalizations [0], so about 10%. The average age of COVID-19 cases is 51, the average age of hospitalization is 68 and the average age of deaths is 82. NOTE: The state dashboard doesn't seem to specifically show the total hospitalizations, just a graph only over the last 3 months. However, on Page 19 [0] there's a breakdown of total hospitalization by ethnicity that shows a total of 111,827 cases and 11,611 hospitalizations (across all known and unknown ethnicities). [0] https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-july-13-2020/download https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid-19-dashboard-july-13-2020/dow...

option 6y ago

I wish our “leaders” (federal, state, local) had at least approximate plan further than half a month into the future.

apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
I feel like half a month is being generous. They don't have a plan for 3 days in the future, it seems.
- yetanta 6y ago
  They better get one. As they just made their tax issues even bigger.
giardini 6y ago
Our "leaders" likely know little better than we and we barely know what is happening. Under such circumstances it is difficult to know "the right thing" to do. The public is so naive that they cannot comprehend a monotonically increasing function (e.g., total deaths/cases). The news daily points out "the total number of deaths/cases is increasing &c...", a trivial truism in an epidemic, yet it engenders fear and panic.
- option 6y ago
  a good reminder to people to vote in elections based on candidates’ track record and not based on FB/youtube ads
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    "Who do you want running your country/state when a pandemic hits" is a different axis than most voters have historically decided on. We're finding out that competence matters, not just ideology.
    - giardini 6y ago
      AnimalPuppet says>""Who do you want running your country/state when a pandemic hits" is a different axis than most voters have historically decided on. We're finding out that competence matters, not just ideology."< I am unconvinced that one should choose leaders based on the likelihood of a pandemic, nor do I believe that one can predict competence under such circumstances given our contentious political environment. Its all a crapshoot and someone has stolen the dice.

daveslash 6y ago

Thank you for posting the CNN text-only version instead of the "full experience" version. For those who aren't aware, https://lite.cnn.com https://lite.cnn.com is text only, but has all the same articles/headlines as the main site.. [Edit] Additionally, There's also https://text.npr.org https://text.npr.org

dehrmann 6y ago

This should worry people more than they realize. I've been keeping an eye on the Bay Area's COVID-19 case rate: https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2020/coronavirus-map/ Something obviously happened in early June that drove new cases up. What worries me is the only place you'll get better compliance with mask wearing and social distancing in the US is NYC, leading me to think "just wear a mask" isn't enough. There's no version of reopening anything indoors that works. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, a city that has generally had COVID-19 under control, has just banned gatherings of more than four people. There a case report from China, I think, where people seated more than six feet apart at a restaurant got infected, possibly through fans or an HVAC system. I also saw the slightly disingenuous (he didn't quite say that) headline that "Dr. Anthony Fauci says U.S. coronavirus cases are surging because nation didn’t totally shut down." Ignoring the bit about a surge, a longer, harder shutdown isn't a fix, either. Look at countries that had stricter shutdowns. Pockets are still popping up. If the virus is active at all in an area, anything indoors risks spreading it, and there's no escape from whack-a-mole lockdowns...unless you're New Zealand. Maybe.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> Something obviously happened in early June that drove new cases up. It's likely secondary infections from people who caught it Memorial Day weekend.
- skellington 6y ago
  Oh sure, it was Memorial Day, not the mass groupings of people who were protesting for BLM.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    If this were primarily related to BLM protests, the COVID hotspots would be the places where BLM protests were biggest, not Arizona, California, and Texas. > The new research, which was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found no evidence that coronavirus cases jumped in 315 cities in the weeks following the first protests. I'm sure BLM numbers affected it, but there were also millions of people who went to beaches, bars, and barbecues on Memorial Day Weekend as well who seemed to have moved the needle much more. NYC, where there were massive BLM demonstrations, just had it's first day with zero COVID deaths in months.

beefok 6y ago

"could be brutal for the economy" Uhh, racking up deaths WILL be way more brutal for the economy.

ogre_codes 6y ago
Likewise, having the millions of people who don't die but end up in the hospital for weeks, get permanently disabled, cognitive damage, etc etc. I think people are over-indexing on fatalities which greatly underestimates the scope here.
- beefok 6y ago
  I agree completely. Just the way the market is going proves that this society is built on a foundation of pure instant gratification to such a level that they can't even understand the realities of a pandemic. We're FUCKED at this point, and the people who should know what to do are drinking the fucking koolaid. I'm just done with anti-intellectualism altogether.
- rurp 6y ago
  > I think people are over-indexing on fatalities I totally agree. The death rate is about all I hear about but it's only one part of the risk. For every death there are many people who experience terrible health complications, many of which are long lasting and maybe even permanent.
  - nimaco 6y ago
    Ok agreed. But what are the actual numbers here? I keep hearing "many people", but not one has given me a % as is available for the death rate.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  There's also the greater point in that we have no clue how long immunity is conferred for once someone has caught the virus. There seems to be some indications that people that were asymptomatic or had an otherwise mild response might have shorter term immunity, which means we might revisit this pandemic in a matter of months if we were to simply give up.

jasonv 6y ago

As an SF East Bay person: I've spoken at length with my best friend, a doctor, and a neighbor, also a doctor -- both of whom believe it's not rational to shut down the economy for the risks of this pandemic, particularly w/r/t the demographics of those most at risk given the (relatively low) mortality rate. Neither are Trump/GOP supporters. I've spoken at length with others.. not doctors.. who think it's not rational to open up at all, and that things need to be shut down further until progress is made. My workplace recently sent out a survey and asked if we were ready to come back to the office, if there were those who were interested in volunteering for a Back to Office pilot project. My team all voted against, with "commuting on Bart" as the first and conclusive deal-breaker. I also don't want to sit in an office with a mask on all day. So, for now, WFH. Of course, if I was subject to unemployment... I don't think I'd change my vote but I would have a different emotional response to the question. (FWIW, I was let go from a contract gig during the first week of SIP, and was hired a week later by a company I'd been in process with for a few weeks).

ghshephard 6y ago
I'm in Ann Arbor Michigan, and we've been back in the office for a month now (with lots of precautions). While not as safe for others, an N95 mask isn't too bad to wear if you can get one - about the only issue is the elastic carves indentations into the soft tissue of your skull that takes several hours to return to normal - I'm kind of worried that I'm permanently damaging the bone - but I figure Doctors/Nurses do this for 8 hours/day as well. Oh, also Coffee can only be drunk on officially (socially distanced) coffee breaks. Which is kind of weird. I figure as long as everyone is wearing a mask, the office is well ventilated (we have open windows), you are socially distanced and clorox-the-hell out of everything a couple times. And we are also essentially bathing in Ethyl-Alcohol at this point. Dispensers placed around the office and people scrubbing down anytime you touch anything.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  > an N95 mask isn't too bad to wear if you can get one You realize these don't filter outgoing air right? If you have CoV2, you're literally spraying everyone around you with it if you wear these masks.

gumby 6y ago

The thing that is forgotten in these reductio analyses is that the economy is made of people, so if they die you have no economy either. The evidence from 1918/19 is that early opening, or failure to close down again when opening fails, leads to stronger economic growth. It’s a shame some wish to learn this from themselves instead of from the suffering of people a century ago.

robotron 6y ago
Hopefully we'll learn for the third time when something crops up again?

squabble 6y ago

The government shouldn't continue to prop up businesses and systems which are not essential. Help people who are affected by the disruption, but not outdated systems.