3 ms·

> We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dange

> We don't have time right now to run randomized controlled trials, while the number of cases continues to rise rapidly and hospitals fill up. Exactly how dangerous each activity is is difficult to know. We have data on various types of activities now. LA's own data showed outdoor dining only being responsible for 4% of the spread, for example. It's hard to justify draconian measures for such a drop in the bucket. > We can temporarily shut down restaurants and compensate them for their losses. For how long? California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.)

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
It's one of many things that will have to close down. Every business will argue that it should be an exception, that there's not enough evidence (I've heard this from so many random businesses - "there's no study showing that the virus spreads in hair salons/pet shops/clothing retailers/badminton clubs") or that it's only a small part of the overall picture. In the end, tons of non-essential business will stay open, and transmission will remain too high. The policy should be across the board, with exceptions only for things that really are necessary (groceries, pharmacies, utilities, delivery services, etc.). The level of contacts between people has to drop as much as possible, so that R can be pushed down as far as possible. The father you push R down, the shorter the lockdown has to be. Countries that have gone halfway have found that new case numbers plateau, but that things don't get any better - they just don't get worse. > California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.) That's one of the reasons why the Federal government is critical for an effective response. It has vast financial resources that the states, individually, do not have.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

It's one of many things that will have to close down. Every business will argue that it should be an exception, that there's not enough evidence (I've heard this from so many random businesses - "there's no study showing that the virus spreads in hair salons/pet shops/clothing retailers/badminton clubs") or that it's only a small part of the overall picture. In the end, tons of non-essential business will stay open, and transmission will remain too high. The policy should be across the board, with exceptions only for things that really are necessary (groceries, pharmacies, utilities, delivery services, etc.). The level of contacts between people has to drop as much as possible, so that R can be pushed down as far as possible. The father you push R down, the shorter the lockdown has to be. Countries that have gone halfway have found that new case numbers plateau, but that things don't get any better - they just don't get worse. > California can't just print money. (The Federal government can, but that's a different problem altogether.) That's one of the reasons why the Federal government is critical for an effective response. It has vast financial resources that the states, individually, do not have.