5 ms·

100% agree, that is what was drilled into our heads in California since March/April, flatten the curve over and over again. We never got like NY with hospitals

100% agree, that is what was drilled into our heads in California since March/April, flatten the curve over and over again. We never got like NY with hospitals overflowing with the severely sick and morgues overflowing. LA was pretty bad in the summer but Gov. Newsom was closing state parks, beaches and even the Natl. Parks along with all non essential businesses. The parks closure was completely idiotic as you want people to be in the sunshine getting exercise and soaking up vitamin D. Transmission outdoors was never a super spreader event and still it was forced down our throats. Now its an absolute chaotic situation where lockdowns go up and down per county every week with it based on number of cases(colleges are open leading to huge case jumps). I think the leadership in this state is completely incompetent and our unemployment rate and subsequent huge drop in taxes will prove it. I am also conflicted about the severity of the virus as I know a old coworker who died of it in his late 40's and a family member of my Wife's who had it but had no symptoms(he is in his mid 30's).

CharlesW 6y ago
> Now its an absolute chaotic situation where lockdowns go up and down per county every week with it based on number of cases(colleges are open leading to huge case jumps). How is a system that loosens and tightens restrictions based on cases and positivity rate "chaotic"?
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Yeah, seems like that would be a system that can respond to changing conditions - seems like a good thing.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  Technically, it's almost the literal definition. There are just a few constraints more, and those are satisfied. But I agree it doesn't make a policy bad.
- bleah1000 6y ago
  Because the system is completely arbitrary. There is no explanation of why 3 extra cases per XX people means you get indoor dining, but 3 less doesn't. All of the numbers that I saw where never justified, and seemed to be based on someone saying we need a few different tiers so that people think we know what we're doing. I think the problem is that there is no easy formula for making these kinds of decisions. You need to look at the data and figure out what's going on before deciding what to do. For example, let's say someone has a big party and there are 100 new cases because of it. It wouldn't make sense to shut down indoor dining just because there was a spike. But on the other hand, if you saw 100 cases coming from a lot of restaurants spread out across a county, then you might consider shutting down indoor dining again.
  - subsubzero 6y ago
    Alot of the cases recently from california are from colleges starting classes. Cases are spiking at the college and instead of closing the college or forcing it to go fully remote the entire county suffers by having its businesses forcibly closed. Or take Lompac[1], a huge outbreak at the prison there caused santa barbara county to possibly enter a restrictive tier(even though the prisoners have no involvement in the community). Also the wording of the level of restriction changed from phases(1,2,3,4) to colored 'tiers' with no explanation. If that is not the picture of dysfunction I don't know what is. [1] - https://www.edhat.com/news/lompoc-prison-could-delay-reopening-of-santa-barbara-county https://www.edhat.com/news/lompoc-prison-could-delay-reopeni...
foogazi 6y ago
> a old coworker who died of it in his late 40's that’s not old at all
- strig 6y ago
  I read it as meaning "former coworker"
- subsubzero 6y ago
  Sorry, better term is former coworker, late 40's is very young to die from a virus.
  - foogazi 6y ago
    Ha makes sense now, in my 40s so I got a bit defensive there :)
bialpio 6y ago
I think the main problem is that there are simple ways to reduce the chances of virus spreading, but people ignore them - the only tool you have left in your tool belt is to shut things down. At this point, opening things up won't change much in my opinion - folks that want to stay at home will stay at home, limit their spendings (no restaurants, entertainment, etc), won't travel, and wait it out till the vaccine is ready. At least I know I will.
- subsubzero 6y ago
  A blanket shutdown of businesses in California is/was a bad idea. The people who want to be irresponsible will get the virus, even the CDC acknowledges that it primarily spreads via close person-to-person contact. So we have a situation where businesses are closing at an apocalyptic rate leading to a huge drop in the tax base for the state, the virus is still spreading rapidly amongst those who do not take it seriously and we(who are responsible) still suffer. Counter that in we have open businesses that see a drop in customers but these businesses see some revenue(all the while maintaining social distancing and requirement of masks inside).
  - bialpio 6y ago
    My point is mostly that even if you do open everything up, that won't convince everyone to start going out and spending again. After seeing what's happening around mandatory masks ("muh freedoms!"), I don't trust my fellow members of the society to do the right thing. At this point I don't care if you open up or not, I can hunker down a few more months, & I expect I'm not the only one thinking along those lines. The only problem to me is that when you open up, you are forcing people to choose between losing their job or potentially getting sick.

CharlesW 6y ago

> Now its an absolute chaotic situation where lockdowns go up and down per county every week with it based on number of cases(colleges are open leading to huge case jumps). How is a system that loosens and tightens restrictions based on cases and positivity rate "chaotic"?

UncleOxidant 6y ago
Yeah, seems like that would be a system that can respond to changing conditions - seems like a good thing.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Technically, it's almost the literal definition. There are just a few constraints more, and those are satisfied. But I agree it doesn't make a policy bad.
bleah1000 6y ago
Because the system is completely arbitrary. There is no explanation of why 3 extra cases per XX people means you get indoor dining, but 3 less doesn't. All of the numbers that I saw where never justified, and seemed to be based on someone saying we need a few different tiers so that people think we know what we're doing. I think the problem is that there is no easy formula for making these kinds of decisions. You need to look at the data and figure out what's going on before deciding what to do. For example, let's say someone has a big party and there are 100 new cases because of it. It wouldn't make sense to shut down indoor dining just because there was a spike. But on the other hand, if you saw 100 cases coming from a lot of restaurants spread out across a county, then you might consider shutting down indoor dining again.
- subsubzero 6y ago
  Alot of the cases recently from california are from colleges starting classes. Cases are spiking at the college and instead of closing the college or forcing it to go fully remote the entire county suffers by having its businesses forcibly closed. Or take Lompac[1], a huge outbreak at the prison there caused santa barbara county to possibly enter a restrictive tier(even though the prisoners have no involvement in the community). Also the wording of the level of restriction changed from phases(1,2,3,4) to colored 'tiers' with no explanation. If that is not the picture of dysfunction I don't know what is. [1] - https://www.edhat.com/news/lompoc-prison-could-delay-reopening-of-santa-barbara-county https://www.edhat.com/news/lompoc-prison-could-delay-reopeni...

foogazi 6y ago

> a old coworker who died of it in his late 40's that’s not old at all

strig 6y ago
I read it as meaning "former coworker"
subsubzero 6y ago
Sorry, better term is former coworker, late 40's is very young to die from a virus.
- foogazi 6y ago
  Ha makes sense now, in my 40s so I got a bit defensive there :)

bialpio 6y ago

I think the main problem is that there are simple ways to reduce the chances of virus spreading, but people ignore them - the only tool you have left in your tool belt is to shut things down. At this point, opening things up won't change much in my opinion - folks that want to stay at home will stay at home, limit their spendings (no restaurants, entertainment, etc), won't travel, and wait it out till the vaccine is ready. At least I know I will.

subsubzero 6y ago
A blanket shutdown of businesses in California is/was a bad idea. The people who want to be irresponsible will get the virus, even the CDC acknowledges that it primarily spreads via close person-to-person contact. So we have a situation where businesses are closing at an apocalyptic rate leading to a huge drop in the tax base for the state, the virus is still spreading rapidly amongst those who do not take it seriously and we(who are responsible) still suffer. Counter that in we have open businesses that see a drop in customers but these businesses see some revenue(all the while maintaining social distancing and requirement of masks inside).
- bialpio 6y ago
  My point is mostly that even if you do open everything up, that won't convince everyone to start going out and spending again. After seeing what's happening around mandatory masks ("muh freedoms!"), I don't trust my fellow members of the society to do the right thing. At this point I don't care if you open up or not, I can hunker down a few more months, & I expect I'm not the only one thinking along those lines. The only problem to me is that when you open up, you are forcing people to choose between losing their job or potentially getting sick.